The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-04-15

| am TO look out OF the statute, away from what Il
authorizes the claimant 10 do, and indulge my i'm
aginaton as to what he may do aside from it. an
afraid that cannot satisfy the expectation. II Mas, how
been argued that the claimant may up the
tihcae the moment he receives III that he may carry ht
prisoner TO any other State. or 10 Cufa. or Brazil AM
sell him ha, if he takes him to Georgia he may
hurry him into the Interior upon plantation, and break
down his spirit, and refuse him all opportunity obtain
trial OF the question OF his freedom. These things
which II said the claimant may do are gravey put
me as considerations upon which am 10 determine wha
Is tha ne OHsd States undertakes TO do when
renders tins man for removal 10 the State of Georgia
am OF opinion that this question is to be determined BY
the PROVISIONS OF the constitution and the act in ques
hon.
In the first place, then, hold that the rendition of fu
gves IRON service, under the constitution, IN ac
analogous to the rendition of fugves from justice, and
a the Two cases so lar the powers and duties OF the
general government concerned, of the gen
ea character and may appropriately be provided for by
the same general means II has, indeed, been declared
the bar that the two cases wide from each other
possble and that they made by the constitution
There 49, however, respectabe-l may say more than re
specabe-auhori,y for the position that they moi
only analogous but that the constitution contemplated
similar proceedings in both. Mr. Justice Story, in his
commentaries on the Constitution, speaking OF both OF
these provisions, holds the following language:
"lt obvious that provisions for the arrest and
moval OF lugves OF both classes contemplate summary
ministerial proceedings and The ordinary Of
dca Investigations 70 asceain whether the complaint be
well founded, the claim OF ownership be established be-
yond all legal controversy In cases OF suspected crimes
the guilt or innocence Of the party is be made his
uia and not upon the preliminary inquiry whether he
shall be delivered up All that would in such
70 be necessary Is. that there should be pfma
dence before the executive authority satisfy its udgmen,
that there is probable cause to believe the party guilty.
such as upon ordinary warrant would Justify his con-
mltment tor trial. And in the of fugitive slaves there
e 6s he I'm
10 formal assertion Of his rights by the
and accordingly upon this subject have
hoI.zed summary proceedings before magistrate upon
which he may grant warrant for a REMOVAL" g Storys
Com on the Constitu ton, sec 1867
The Commentaries written and published nearly
ten years before the case OF Prigg Pennsylvania
Cured. When the learned Judge came TO deliver the
Two clauses IN the constitution the subject OF iugves
which stand in juxtaposon with each other, and have
been thought mutually to illustrate each other" nc Pc
ters, 6lll Let me ask by whom have they been sup
posed Manresty by the Congress who enacted the law
OF 1923 which provided for carrying both these clauses
into effect in the statute and by similar proceedings
with the single difference that in the the appro
proprate proof was to be presented 10 the executive OF
State who is to deliver the fugitive to the agent of the
proof Is to be presented to judge OF the circuit dis
rct court OF the United States, any magistrate OF
county CITY, or town corporate. who is TO grant certh
cate to the claimant authorizing him TO the fugitive
to the State or Territory from which he fled (Act OF
February IL, 1899 II is obvious therefore, that far
as the legislation OF the country, practised under for
nearly sixty have any tendency to establish
analogy between these this legislation the
position that they analogous In addition to this the
declaration OF the Supreme Court of The United States in
Prggs case carefully and ndusrously made. that they
regarded the act OF 1893 relative to fugitive slaves
clearly constitutional in all it's leading provisions, and,
with the exception OF that part which confes authority
on State magistrates, free from reasonable doubt
difficulty, TO my mind clearly authorizes the inference
hal is lawful for Congress authorize summary min
seria proceedings in The OF class of ugtves
It is IN The case OF the other; for it is quite plain that
they had authorized such proceedings in BOTH
In addition TO the authorities already cited to this point
may also rely that OF the supreme of Pennsyi
vana, who, IN The year 1919, said OF the law OF l793
that at plainly appears, from the whole scope and tenor
OF the constitution and act OF Congress, that the fugitive
was to be delivered up, summary proceeding, with
ou, the delay OF formal trial in court OF common law
But il he had really right 10 freedom ha, right
impaired by his preceding he was placed Just the
prosecute his right in the State which he belonged"
4 (W right Us. Deacon, Serg and Rawe, ca
II would seem, therefore. tina, il only rema ms TO inquire
whether the act OF 1850 authorizes requires anything
more Than summary ministerial proceeding, IN aid OF
the right secured by the constitu,onnamely, the right
Of removal In order 10 determine this is necessary to
look at the proceedings which have been authorized
The statute like the act OF I93 requires the claimant TO
present TO the commissioner proof that the person whom
he demands owes him service IN another State and
when The commissioner satisfied OF this he is grant
a certificate, which will authorize the removal Now, II
TO have very little tendency show that this
is ul and final trial on the question OF ssrviude TO say
that the proof required to be offered is that the party
held TO service The force and effect of the evidence
quired by the statute must be limited to the object for
which il is required and that object be, il clearly
10 establish the right OF removal only, it cannot be
tended TO another and uerior object-namely the right
10 continue TO hold the party after he has been removed
In the case OF iugllVe from proven
that he has committed crime. Bat proved for what
purpose Clearly establish the right of removal This
having been established, the warrant that authorizes bis
removal has effect TO authorize his imprisonment or
punishment IN the State to which he is emoved bu, the
right OF that State 10 hold and punish hun must be
,ablished, just as II he had never left ts jurisdiction.
am equally unable, also, to feel the force OF The OBJ
lection, ina, IN the OF fugitive from service, he is
surrendered 10 his owner whereas fugitive from justice
surrendered 10 State for the fact TO to have
no tendency 10 show that the proceedings here
either trial OF anything than the right OF
moval. In both cases the government OF the United
States surenders the fugitive provides for his
der To the party TO whom 1t has stipulated that he shall
be delivered up. That party in the is the
owner who claims right TO hold the fugitive after he
has received him in the other, II is the Sate which
claims 10 hold and punish the fugitive after il has
celved him In both the government OF the UNI.
ted States does nothing more than 10 surrender HIM, or
TO provide for and cause his surrender Ii is not true
that in the OF fugitive from justice security is
taken that the party will be tried The act OF 1923 does
require that he should have been indicted He
may be demanded, although be IS only charged with
crime affidavit before magistrate in the
State from which he has Neither does the statute
OF this Commonwealth mike any provision by which the
executive oil this State, when surrenders fugitive
from justice IL to stlpuate that he shall be tried (Rev.
/ Stat, C. l42, sec. 7, s, 81
Neither does the government oil the United States,
when II surrenders fugitive from justice TO foreign
country hold him its protection until he has been
tried Such fugitive s not surrendered under the law
OF nations, but under treaty stipulation; and in the
case Of the treaty with England he be delivered up
TO Justice but that justice to be regulated administer.
ed and dealt to him. not according TO the demands
the ideas forms of proceeding OF this government but
according the absolute discretion Of the government
that receives him In all these the government
making the ssender undoubtedly makes IL in the gem
eral faith and confidence which the comfy of nations
"A i'm