Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1851-07-10

.Agdiin.

any warrant, and carry shall be preserved and
him OIL as he might any no fact tried by Jury
other property. shall be otherwise re-
That is, he may do it examined by any Court
without any jury trial of the United States,
or any trial whatever than according to the
showing him to be his rules of the common
slave. law.
QueIy.-What stakeholder would be satisfied
with twenty dollars as the price of any fugitive
slave If he were not worth more than twenty
dollars, he would not be pursued.
Should it be said here is no suit at common
law and no suit at all, the reply is, that it is
subject of controversy, and may assume the form
of a suit.
The court, in giving their opinion in this
case, on page GIG of the 10th Of Peters, show
ing the claim of the owner, when out of possess
sion, to be proper subject of judicial cognl-
zance, use the following language lnasmuch
as the right is a right of property, capable of
being recognized and asserted by proceedings
before court of justice between parties adverse
to each other, it constitutes, in the strictest
sense, q controversy between parties, and a case
arising under the Constitution of the United
States" But there is yet no suit at common
mon law. True. There is no suit till one is
brought. And according to the suggestion of
Mr.. Justice Mclean, in this way, the slave may
be forced off without trial into slave state, out
of all reach of remedy, and out of the reach of
that protection which he enjoyed and had a
right to enjoy in the state where he is seized.
Can such proceeding be tolerated If it can,
it ought to be chrlstened a scheme to convert
freemen into slaves. If this can be done with
out some judicial investigation OF the fact
whether the person seized is slave or not, re-
sulting in decision against him, the pretence
of the claimant, that the man seized is his slave,
is Just as good as the reality, If by force and
arms, he can carry him out Of a free state into
slave state
The victim is then as helpless as Joseph was
when he first arrived in Egypt. No one, surely,
will deny that colored person, residing in a
free state, in obedience to the laws there, if he
never was a slave, is entitled to the protection
of the laws of such state, as much as any other
citizen of such state. Well, can his rights be
destroyed or abridged by some person claiming
him as his slave without any proof of his being
thus his slave, or any judicial investigation
where proof could be admitted for or against
him, if it existed. The thing seems wholly
preposterous and absurd. But l will not re-
peat the whole reasoning of Mr.. Justice Nc
Lean upon this point
The Constitution is very full and particular
in guarding persons against seizures 1t must
be by warrant and that cannot issue, but witt
an oath of affirmation of the truth of the fact
upon which the warrant is predicated. More
over the person must be particularly described
in the warrant, before any seizure can b.
made. Now, when a regular warrant is oh
tanned, did any person ever suspect, that thu
person wholly interested in the subject, and 70
whose sole benefit the warrant issued, coult
serve this warrant? Surely not But yet
under this decision he may seize without oatl
or affirmation, without proof and without war
rant
would ask any one-I would even ask tn
Justices of the Supreme Court whether the con
structon given by them to the statute of 1898
can be sustained either by the constitution o
by any rule of construction known in law
The letter of the statute is, the claimant, hi
agent or attorney, are empowered to seize anu
carry before a magistrate. This is the letter O
the statute. But the letter does not Away
penetrate through the bark. Mr.. Justice Nc
lean well observes, that this conveys no author
ity for any seizure but to carry before magis
trate. deem that wholly inadmisslble. Blu
to return to the point under consideration. II
should be recollected that the statute is to op
crate in a free state, upon persons residing
there in the exercise of liberty, subject to the
laws, and entitled to the protection of the laws
of such state, and, while there, they are entitled
to be treated as free. But the claimant comes
to deprive them of those privileges, and assert
right to treat them as property belonging to the
claimant, and by him to be carried after de-
cision affirming his claim into slave state fol
his sole benefit. Now, will it do to let the
claimant have the control of the person of his
| cln md hmm hoK4n LaC..
his claim is in any seuse established, or even
investigated ? The Constitution uses no such
language. That guards effectualIy against u,,-
reasonable seizures. What could be more IN
reasonable than for man to come, stran ger
into free state, and approach man. coored
or not, bnt enjoying the blessings of freedom in
such state, and say to him, You are my slave
and forcbly seize him, and start to carry him
off ? and who knows where he would carry him I
Who knows whether he would carry him before
magistrate, or carry him off into slavery forth
WITH as was done by Prigg in the case before
us ? But let him get the legal process, in the
hands of responsible officer and the rights
of the person seized will not be wholly subject
to the will of his interested pursuer. 1t the act
of 1893 will bear the construction thus put upon
it to let the claimant act as an officer in his own
case before it is ascertained and decided that
the person is his slave, so far as it seems to
warrant this, it is unconstitutional and ought to
be so holden. If right is granted or secured
10 man by constitution or law, the presump-
ton is that he will obtain possession of that
right not by force, but in some way known and
practiced in law, by some suitable officer known
in law. Let the construction be, that the claim
ant OF his agent seizes by the aid Of proper
officer, under the authority of legal precept,
then will it harmonize with the Constitution,
and the persons seized, whether the claim be
real or fictitious, be safe from the tyranny Of
interested aggressors upon his liberty.
have read the report of this case Of Prigg
vs. Pennsylvania, with all the candid consider
alton of which am susceptible, to see what
was decided, and the grounds of the decision.
The case was one in which the person abduc-
ted was in fact slave and the slave of the
person claiming her. And, In all the points
decided and in all the reasonings in their sup
port (exceaghg what was said by Mr. Justice
McLean,)F was presumed that every person
pursued as fugitive slave is a slave and the
slave of the person claiming. This, surely,
may not always be the case. Instances, not a
few, have been published of the disappearance
Of free colored people under circumstances in
dcating the almost certainty that they were
kidnapped into hopeless bondage.
Every attempt of the claimant ola fugitive in
free state. is an insult to the sovereignty Of
the state, till he pursues regular constitutional
course, and obtains a legal precept for the APP
prehension of the person he claims. The SOW
ereign states know nothing about strangers that
come to reside among them, whether they are
bond or free but they are presumed, prima
tacie, to be free, and are, and must be treated
as such while they remain peacefully among
them, and claim to be free. And the panopy
of the laws of such state is their Shield until
something mot brute force, but something legal
and tangibe calls them from under this panoply
to some other jurisdiction, The freedom, and
independence, and sovereignty of each state
seems to rennire that mgitYe slaves while resi-