The republic., 1851-04-11

duty imposed by the Constitution for the recovery of
fugitive slaves the law under IL we'll devised for
carrying out the provision Of the Constitution and
and labor 70 James Potter was complete and i'm
pregnable. The Union could not have been FORM
ed without the adoption Of the provision and he
believed that It could not be preserved without due
observance of the provision. He now cited the
statute provision prescribing the powers and duies
of the commissioners of the United States circuit
courts. namely, covering the powers passed by JUS
tices Of the peace Of the United States, provided
in the judiciary act Of 1893. He denied that the
granting OF n certificate was judicial net esta-
blishing the right OF the claimant OF fugitive. 1t
only enabled him to exercise his right to remove
his slave without obstruction on the part OF private
persons vcxatious process resorted TO in the
raj States through which he had to pass before
reaching his own State. Arriving there the certi-
ficate will have spent its force The claimant will
possess no new right under twill not have en-
ioyed any new right. His right TO his slave
perfect under the laws Of his own State. and his
right to pursue and retake him in another State
was secured under the Constitution. All the
tificate does for him is 70 give him the power to
protect his right while he has the slave in tran
situ
This argument that the powers given in the act
OF 1893 were judicial had not in times past been
unoxamned, az had been suggested by the senior
counsel on the other side. In his commentaries.
Judge Story. treating of the fugitive provisions Of
It out, had said: at is obvious that these provisions
for tho arrest and removal of fugitives Of both
classes contemplate summary minisfeyiaI proceed
LEGATIONS, TO ascertain whether the complaint be
well founded or the claim Of ownership be estab-
lished beyond all legal controversy" "And in the
cases of fugitive slaves there would scem to be the
same necessity Of requiring only prima facie
proofs Of ownership. without putting the party to
formal assertion Of his rights by suit at the
mon law Congress appear to have acted upon
this opinion; and, accordingly, in the statute upon
zAd
before magistrate, upon which he may grant q
warrant for removal" So far the law goes,
the claimant can do nothing legally under the GER
tifcate which he cannot do without it. where he IL
not obstructed and resisted. The certificate is .
monition to third and interfering parties that
the claimant has right TO take away the fugitive;
and 10 like warrant issued by magistrate, and
not a judgment rendered by court.
Incidentally, Col. Thomas referred to the case Of
the Commonwealth Griffith, in our own
preme judicial court, in 1928, bearing upon the
consttutionality Of the act Of l793. In giving the
opinion of the court, Chief Justice Parker said
1--WE do not perceive that the statute ia unconstitu
tiona, and VIC think that the defence is we'll made
out" And further, the chief justice remarked, in
reply to suggestion by one Of the associate
judges, "the construction now given by the court
to this statute had been adopted, ever since the
Federal Constitution went incorporation, by Lowell
and Davis, Justices Of the district court Of the
United States. Pick. vol. 2, pp. l9, 20.
Col. Thomas opened on several other points, such
the authorization Of Bacons power of attorney,
the other side; but the Commissioner relieved him
from arguing them at length, AZ he was clear in
relation to the matters controverted.
Col. Thomas then reiterated his main points, as
follows and the Commissioner held with him that
they covered the whole case, far as he had jurs-
dction in il:
L. That the Constitution of the United States was
intended to enable the shareholders to reclaim their
3. The act of Congress Of 1893 was introduced
to facilitate such reclamation, and there 10 no es-
sential difference between that act and the act of
1850. @&
8. That the act of reclamation is simply extradi-
tion; and the proceedings here look no further.
a. Congress has rightly conferred this power
upon commissioners.
Col. Thomas, in conclusion, read several author
tiles, some of which had also been introduced by
the other side; and having referred to the decision
of the supreme judicial court on the application for
gument, he announced that he had closed.
Mr.. Sewall now, with the view Of moving for q
postponement, proposed to put in the affidavit
made by Sims, and read on Saturday.
that the gentleman should have allowed Sims to
have sworn TO that statement, az he must have
known that 1t was false.
The Commissioner reminded Mr.. Sewall that
Sims was excluded by the statute from tcstifying
in the case and beyond that he felt it his duty to
state frankly to Mr.. Sewnl that he could not give
the least particle Of credit to the affidavit. The
statements in it were utterly irreconcilable with
the facts testified to by the Witnesses. and left
tirely uncontroverted by the counsel for the de-
fence.
Mr.. Sewall new proposed to put in, as ground
for postponement, telegraphic despatch just re-
ceiyed by Mr.. Dana, one Of the advising counsel
The Commissioner said tle defence had had am
pie time to prepare, and the prisoner had had full
and fair hearing by able and most eminent coun-
sci. and he could listen TO no motion for postpone
ment.
Mr.. Scwall now informed the Commissioner thnt
he had just been told by Sims that the United States
marshal had warrant against him for an assault
upon an officer.
The Commissioner replied, that he could know
nothing about any such process judicially,
no complaint of the sort had been preferred before
him.
The Commissioner now snid that he should have
been prepared to give his decision forthwith
it not for the great constitutional question which
had been argued. To prepare, with the proper
question, would require some time, and it could
not well be done BY Wednesday, and as the next
Journ over till Friday morning at o'clock; and
he adjourned the court accordingly.
The WHf0 Ann rur CouNrpv-Ou the