New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-09-02

Commissioner. The objection Is true IN point Of
tact, ana If there not another of more serious
nature. this would. Al least, require consideration.
But It is further objected. that the OF the Pc
tonef Is embraced by the act. rather by that
part Of II under which the proceeding was enter
tanned, and oy which alone II could have been au-
ihorZed Ii Is due 10 the highly respectable gen
itman by whom tie certificate was granted, 10
observe, that this objection appears not 10 have
been mace before HIM, and probably II was not
thought OF by HIM. or, until afterwards, by the
counsel for the petitioner The claimant saw III
10 avail himself of the provisions OF the 10Th section
OF the act by which the owner of fugitive slave Is
permitted to make proof OF the main facts OF nile
and escape before Count of Record or some Judge
thereof, III the state whence the escape was made,
and having obtained transcript of the record, which
such Court = required 10 make, Of the matters 80
proved 10 exhibit the same 10 the Judge or CommlS-
soner 10 whom application shall be made, N the
State where the fugitive shall De found, as conclu-
Siye evidence OF the facts therein stated such
record was produced before the Court IN the presen,
case. and Is distinctly stated N the certificate 10
have formed The basis OF hIs acton IN the premises.
Ii was suggested al the argument, though appa-
renily With no great confidence, that the Com
missioner might BY possibility have had other
competent evidence before HIM, but | am clearly
OF opinion that such supposliion Is admissible.
There Is not, IN the papers before me, the slightest
lntlmatlon 10 this effect but on the contrary, the
transcript Is exclusively referred 10 throughout a.
the evidence by which he title OF the claimant and
the fact of escape were established. But the escape
Is also throughout alleged To have occurred or
about the 25th day OF August 1880 whereas the act
not passed until the 18th OF September follow
ing and II Is upon these dates that the objection
founded. The language OF the 18th section OF the
act Is this. And 5s Il fRrta.r enacted. That when
any person held to labor service IN any State or
Territory or the District OF Columbia. shall escape
theletTOm. the party 10 whom such service or labor
! due. he, or his agent or attorney. may apply 70
any Court of Record therein. or Judge theTeoin
ton. and make satisfactory proof, &c
Now Is i insisted that THIS provision Is clearly
prospective and therefore napphcaole TO the OF
an escape from labor or service occurring before the
passage of me act and such. am constrained 10
saw appears 10 me 70 be the PLAIN sense of the ell
actment 1t was agreed by the Counsel for the claim
aui that this being remedial act II Is TO De con
>irued is 70 suppress the mischief. and advance the
remedy and that II II can De reasonably inferred
irom Is whole tenor, that the provision IN question
designed 10 retrospecyey, II i to De 50 IN
terpeieG. But when the language Of a statute !
unambiguous and leads 10 no a5surdlly OF palpaoie
injustice : to be- interpreted according 10 Is natl
raj import. II may be conceded that the leslslt-
i've lIient imported by the words used. might nave
been mole explicitly declared. hy the aiiton:
immediately after the word shall" OF iae "otl
hereafter OF OF the WosdS njfer ths PlssaSs O. li'S
act but /, cannot think. be maintained that tAls