Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1851-05-29
Fugitive Slave Law.

the following communication, which, it appears, was
written by citizen Of Indianapolis and published in the
Richmond Jeffersonian. 1t strong argument favor
of the law, and evidently from the pen Of distinguished
jurist. As legal argument it cannot be refuted
Correspondence OF Jeaersonianl
Indianapolis, May ~, 1851.
Dear SRA while ago you published in your paper
your objections to the Fugitive Slave law Hooked them
carefully at the time and laid the paper by with
view to notice of them, but find now, search, that
ii has escaped. However, my memory will serve me as
to most of them.
The Constitution OF the United States contains the
following provision:
THAT no person held to service or abor in one State
under the laws thereof escaping into another, SHALL in
consequence of any law regulation therein. be dis
charged from such service labor but shall be deliver
ed up the claim of the party whom such service
labor may be DUE"
This is the provision of the Constitution under which
live and which is the par law. And the first
question is, shall be lived up be enlorced7 To this
question, all union will give but answer, il shall.
The aboonst of the North, who processes conscien-
ous scrupes, will say shall not be- and the Southern
nner who has personal interests its being enforced
will account Of the opinions OF the northern abo
tonsts say cannot be, and hence these two classes
come to a common conclusion that the Union must, and
ought to be dissolved To these men, it is useless
talk; but to every true man who expects live up
the Constitution and this OF II enforced, the
next question that arises s hou shall it be donea BY
the Constitution, escaping slaves are to be returned to
be done according the provisions OF statutory
law; for it will do leave the Constitution to exc
cute ITSELF This would be followed by these results.
The Of the slave would come here for his proper
y and being entitled by Constitution there
being no statute pointing out the mode Of its recapure,
he would be driven to proceed and take it BY force, and
by the Constitution would be bound gUe it )"
But this would lead to riots mobs murders indictments,
civil suits Tor the value OF rescued slaves &c., in the
Of Crocker and Others last year. in the s.
of State. Such results could be desirable to
good citizen. Congress, them should pass law
pointing out the mode of reclaming away slaves.
Well in 1898, Congress passed law presiding mode
OF recapurng slaves through the of the magistrates
existing under the laws Of the several States but the
Supreme Court decided that those magistrates
bound to act under the laws Of Congress- and that all
State Legislation in aid of the execution of the consttu
tional provision void Thus the law of 1893 be-
nullity and this left the enforcement of the Con-
sttuton to fugitive slaves in the hands of the
OF the slaves, and hence riots &c., and the
sity for new law amendments to the old, supplying
defects. Accordingly in 1850, Congress passed sundry
amendments to the law OF 1893 by which, among other
things, set of officers created through whom
slaves might be legally reclaimed and those blacks who
might efree degree protected from kdnappers.
And the question arises what the objections to this
law do not put this question to nullhers dsunlon-
sts any such there are, who opposed to the
enforcement of the constitution because with them
objection enough to the law that it aids all the
turning OF slaves but put the question to such men
willing the constitution of country lived
to and carried into effect good faith (and wished
there may be other in this State) what then the
objections with such men, to this law You for know
you are Union, law abiding man, say it abolishes the
writ OF habeas corpus. say il does not; and if it does
not, there is nothing in this objection. 1t does not,
Because it cannot. The Constitution of the United
States declares that the writ shall be suspended
cep in OF invasion and rebellion, and hence this
law purported to do it, it would be far void, and
magistrate would pay any attention to that part oil IT.
2 1t does not purport to abolish it and 3. The writ is
constantly issued when applied for since the law. This
il should settle the question.
Again. you say it brbes the officer to decide the per-
brought before him to be slave by giving him $40
if he decide. and S5 if he do decide. Very
well. If this be true and it be ground sufficient to
justify resistance TO the law, where will the doctrine
lead usl Ry the laws Of the State its existence,
if man charged with crime, is brought before mass-
trate that magistrate the officers of court the witnesses
may get their fees and costs, often amounting than five
ten dollars if they convict the man, but lose them
if they do not convict him. But who ever heard the
charge made that this bribery procured false convictions
and that nsti6es resistance all criminal lawsf
But the short to this objection is, that the officer
has work to do where he finds the person slave,
than when he does not the way of making cat papers,
and hence should have more pay.
3. You say that this law compes to aid in the de.
iverng the runaway slaves. Very WELL suppose it
does2 The constitution of Government, which we
bound to support says these slaves shall be deliver
ed up and how is the the lev for their surrender 10 be
executed! how any law of the State to be executed
but by aid of the ctizensl Now, if constable is
attempting, under law of our State to arrest man
he has right to call upon every citizen TO assist him in
accomplishing his purpose and this is all the fugitive
slave law requires. In plain terms, il is simply this.
1t requires the ctzen where it may may be necessary
to aid in executing the laws Of bis country 1t is not
requirement to put into JAIL negroes into slavery
but it aid in executing the laws of the land when
much resistance is made those laws that the officers
appointed for the purpose cannot otherwise execute
them And what citizen will say the laws Of the land
should not be enforced? And what is the OF laws
unless they can be enforceda
d. 1t is objected that the law aboishes trial by jury
This is not So 1t says nothing about trial by jury,
is the object Of the law try the question Of freedom
or slavery the person claimed. To illustrate.
person in Maine California goes before the grand jury
of county of those States and swears that some
white person in Indiana has been guilty of crime
in that county of that State and has fled to Indiana
The grand jury indict the man, he knowing nothing
about and officer, with the proper authority comes
to this State demands the alledged fugitive from Justice
arrests him. and is about take him from his vile anc
children to Maine or California for trial. He denies
his guilt says it's all false all mace demands trial by
Jury here gets out writ of habeas corpus and all thai
but avails nothing, trial by jury is given him. anc
r he is hurried away thousand miles from nome 10 un
dergo his trial in distant State. There he can have
jury trial. These often So when color
ed person demanded by the proper authority as run
away slave he returned the State from which he is
charged to have fed and there, not here he can have
Jury trial to test the question Of his slavery or freedom
Ask your neiehber Hunnicut and he will tell you wheth
slaves have trials for their freedom in Virginia
And how could the alleged slave have jury trial here
Must he lie in Jail till the witnesses can be brought from
Texas or their depositionsl And who is to bring wit
nesscs get dispositions for hint treguires money
carry on trial remote from home That the claim
ant would have the negro would and disastrous In
indeed would il be him. if his fate to be determ
ned by final trial here 1t seems to me there wa
another objection two, which have orgotten but
think they were not very weighty l have thus yer.
hurredy run over your objections, but have set dowl
the principal ideas which wish to convey. Iexamne
the law myself with prejudice against IT, and with tn