The southern press., 1851-09-06

under which the proceedings were entertained,
and by which alone IL could have been author
lied. 1t is due to the highly respectable gentle
man, by whom the certificate was granted, to
observe that this objection appears not to have
been made before him, and probably it was not
thought of by him, or, until afterwards, by the
counsel for the petitioner.
The claimant saw fit to avail himself of the
provisions of the 10th section of the act, by
which the owner of fugitive slave IL permitted
to make proof of the main facts of title and escape
before court of record, or some Judge thereof,
in the State whence the escape was made, and
having obtained II transcript Of the record, which
such court is required TO make, OF the matters
so proved, to exhibit the same to the Judge or
commissioner, to whom application shall be made
in the State where the fugitive shall be found
as conclusive evidence of the facts therein stated
Such record was produced before the court in
the present case, and is distinctly stated in the
certificate, to have formed the basis Of this action
in the premises. 1t was suggested ut the argu-
ment, though apparently with no great confidence
that the commissioner might by possibility have
had other competent evidence before him; but
am clearly Of opinion thai no such supposition
is admissible. ... ..". ".. .%".
There is not, in the papers before me, the
slightest intimation to this effect, but on the con-
trary, the transcript is exclusively referred to
throughout, as the evidence by which the title of
the claimant and the fact of escape were estab-
lished. But the escape is also throughout al
legged to have occurred son or about the .25th
day OF August, $780," whereas the act was not
passed until the 18th of September following;
and it is upon these dates that the objection is
founded. The language of the 10th section OF
the act is this And be il further enacted, That
when any person held to labor or service, in any
State or territory, or in the District of Columba,
shall escape therefrom, the party to whom such
service Or labor is due, his, her, or their agent or
attorney may apply to any court Of record there
in, or Judge thereof in vacation, and make salts
factory proof &c. .:f.% .1.:>.
Now it is insisted that this provision is clearly
prospective, aud therefore inapplicable to the
case of an escape from labor or service, occur
ring before the passage of the act: and such /
am constrained to say, appears to me to be the
plain sense of the enactment, 1t was agreed by
the counsel for the claimant that this being a
remedial act, it is to be so construed as TO sup
press the mischief, and advance the remedy );
and that if it can be reasonably inferred from its
whole tenor, that the provision in question was
designed to act retrospectively, it is to be SO in
terpreted. But when the language of statute
is unambiguous, and leads to no absurdity or
palpable injustice it is to be Interpreted cord
ing to its natural import 1t may be conceded
that the legislative intent imported by the words
used, might have been more explicitly declared,
by the ad 1ition, Immediately after the word
''shalE' of the word hereafter, or Of the words
AFR The passage of This act but it cannot,
think, be maintained that this intent is not un-
equivocally expressed by the word .shall" alone
If were permitted, however, to look beyond
the terms Of the provision itself, and to specu-
late upon its probable design, aui unable to
perceive that the result would be varied. The
only other part of the act, specially referred to
by the counsel for the claimat, for the purpose
Of shedding light upon that under consideration,
is the beginning of the sixth section, Hhich pro-
,ides for different mode Of establishing the
facts Of title and escape. .='. II"
The words here are: THAT if person held
to service or labor in any State or territory Of
the United States, has heretofore, or shall! here
after escape" s.. The argument is that it is
manifest from this language that Congress in
tended 70 provide for cases of prior as we'll as
subsequent escape. There can be no doubt Of
this, 50 far as the provisions of this section are
concerned. But it is 10 be considered that the
10th section Introduced a most important in
stge If t act. II authorizes IN ec pdrip ap-
plieaton to 4 count or Judge, to be selected by
the claima't, in the absence Of, aad without
notice to the party to be affected by the pro-
ceeiings, to determine questions of fact involv-
ing his freedom seryitudc for life, and declares
! the decisions Of such cour' or Judge to be full
and conclusive evidence of the facts decided
and therefore binding upon the judgment and
conscience OF the court, Judge or commissioner
in any other State, before whom the alleged
fugitive may be reclaimed 1t is not my pro-
vince to express any opinion on the reasonable
ness OF this great innovation. IL must be con.
ceded that there were not wanting strong and
lus'lfiable motives fer its enactment aud it is
sufficient for those whose duty it is to execute
it, that Congress have seen fit to adopt it.
But it may, think, well be supposed, that in
Difference to the spirit Of the great principle Of
natural Justice and constitutional law, which for.
bids the enactment of er post .tacio laws, it was
intentionally limited to cases Of escape from
servtud>, thereafter to occur; and this inference,
! am Of opinion, is rather strengthened than
weakened by the retroactive phrdseology EN-
plGyed in the 9th section. The liability Of this
provision to abuse is too obvious TO esca pc A..
tice and it is worthy of observation, that in the
present case, as it appears by the record Of the
Kentucky court, instead of requiring the person.
al attendance Of the witnesses of the claimant.
the court saw fit. in the disc large of the grave
and responsible duty imposed upon il by the act,
to receive aifdavits, and to act upon them alone,
although the deponents are described as residents
of the city of Louisville, where the court was
held 1t may well be that these witnesses were
credible persons, able from their own knowledge
10 at est to all the facts requisite fully to war
rant the decisions Of the court, and that Il care.
ful examination would have cliaited no
other facts favorable to the petitioner; but con-
ceding that the evidence before the court might
lawfully be held by it TO constitute the salts
factory proof" required by the act. the opposite
course ofprocedure would, to say the least have
been more consonant with the established, ard,
! had supposed, universally recognized principles
Of enlightened Jurisprudence.
AN therefore also of opinion, that il is my
duty to apply to this enactment the same rule
of construction that is applicable to penal
statutes. " It was" says Professor Christian,