The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1851-09-03


es to the final hearing Upon the merits Of the
case only. So it Is With the fugitive from
justice. He is surrendered to be taker 10
the place whence he fed, there TO be tiled
by Il jury of his couniry-bui upon the quts-
tion Of remanding him, which is merely pre-
liminary TO his final trial, nobody ever
thought him entitled 10 trial by jury.
Thus we see there are cases where per-
son may be deprived OF his liberty and even
sent into another Jurisdiction to be there
dealt with, without jury trial. How is it
with the fugitive from service Is he any
more entitled as constitutional right 10 such
a trial.
A clnmor has been raised about consen-
ing man to perpetual slavery by the de-
cisioh Of judge or commissioner without a
trial by jury. This eamcr has originated
in the suppositon that the decision of the
judge under the act Of Congress is conclu,
sive upon the question Of freedom or slavery.
This is a great mistake. that decision !,
conclusive only of the right to restore the
person 10 the place whence be came When
that is done, the decision has performed its
Office and is no longer of any effect
In all the States where slavery exists, free
men exist also. The condition of freedom
or slavery. and the relation of maser and
slave, it is conceded on all hands, depend
upon the law Of the State in which the stib-
jocts Of enquiry reside. Such States must
have, not only laws regulating the subject,
but modes of proceeding to settle questions
of freedom or slavery. ]; is appropriate
also that such state should execute its own
laws, and determine all questions growing
out Of them. Those States have therefore
proceeding by petition, by which any per-
son held in servitude may claim his freedom,
and have a trial by jury
The provision of the constitution goes
upon the supposition that the fugitive can
have fair trial upon the question of free
dom where he belongs. 1t thus far provides
that he shall be surrendered unon demand,
leaving it TO the Ian of his own state TO dis
pose Of him. The act of Congress author
ICES tho judge 10 do this, and when it is done
the decision has spent its force. Upon O
trial of the question OF freedom in the state
where the parties belong, the certificate Of
the judge under the act Of Congress would
moi afford the slightest evidence that the
party was slave, nor would it be admissible
as evidence at all. Is not the case then an ,
alogous to the surrender Of fugitive from
justice which we have seen is mere pre-
liminary enquiry, and does it not stand in a
legal and constitutional light upon the same
footing? In this view of the subject, the
spirit OF the constitution is as well satisfied
by the ultimate trial by jury in ono case as
in tho other.
II the trial by jury were allowed under
the act Of Congress, the verdict would be, as
it ought to be, conclusive upon the question,
and then the Laws Of one state, and the rola-
ton betTeeE its people, would be taken Out
Of its own hands to he administered and en-.
forced elsewhere.
| am aware that, such is the feeling on this
subject in the Free States, the people are
reluctant TO trust the question in the hand,
OF the tribunals Of the slaveholding states
They imagine that there is little chance for
freedom there, and would prefer that the
subject should bc passed upon bya jury Of
the free states. Unfortunately, there is rs
much disirust on ono side as the other, and
the people Of the south are as loath TO trust
us as we them. Whether the distrust bo
well or i'll founded, it is not necessary to en-
quirc. The question is, can we claim con.
sttutional right 10 take upon ourselves the
administration Of their laws and the regula-
ton of the relative tights Of their people
whenever one party may choose to abscond
and come among us-and cannot Congress
constiIuiionally remand the absconding party
for u final trial to the place of his domicil !?
Docs the fact that one party abscsnds and
comes among us so draw after it Jurisdiction
over the other party, and the relation be-.
tween thcm that the first cannot be surren.
dered until we have settled conclusivcly the
relation between them, as il shall subsist in
the phce of their domicil, to the exclusion
of the local jurisdiction Ifnot then clearly
can Congress carty out the provision Of the
Constitution, in siich manner as will pre-
serve the jurisdiction OF the stale over its
own people. Upon the whole, | have never
entertained a doubt of the constituionality
of the act Of Congress, whatever may be it.
defects, nor of the obligation of every cili,
zen 10 obey it unit. j; shall be regularly re-
pcalcd;
In regard to the Habes, Corpus act OF our
own legislature, have had occasion more
than once 10 express decided opinion.
During the last session Of Congress, an ar.
iiclc appeared in the National Intelligence
under tho signature Of Vermonter, which
was afterwards reprinted in the Union, and
in the latter paper attrbdtod to me, in which
the ACT in question WIS most Poioiedly con
demned. Shortly after wards a letter was
addressed by me TO Mr.. Scgar, of the legis-
aturc of Virginia, in answer to letter of
enquiry from him, which also found its way
into those papers, and both communications
were published in some Of the papers in this
state. Those who have read those articles
can entertain no doubt as to my views on the
subject. The provision for the. reclamation
of fuei,iyes must be carried out bv Congress.