The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-03

tempting mslead portion OF the northern people, bet
ter than themselves, by inducing the belief that there ID
an important difference between the delivery OF fugtives
from justice and fugitives from labor They affirm that
fugitive from justice may properly be delivered up under
summary process Notwithstanding the constitution Sc
cures the writ OF habeds corpus and trial by Jury, be-
cause such fugitive from justice must be tried under the
laws OF The State from whence he fled before he be
condemned and punished They then affirm thai the case
is different with regard fugitive from labor for, say
they if he is delivered up under summary process, he
has opportunity of testing the fact Of slavery. This
distinction is unfounded; and the assertion that person
who is delivered up under the ugitve-slav law OF 1850
is thereby deprived of opportunity of testing the fact
OF servude, is untrue.
| On the 9th of December published the law OF Viz
gnia relative to suits for freedom, and promised TO
continue the publication that point until had re-
cited the provisions OF the codes OF all the saveholdng
States. Other engagements have interrupted somewhat
the prosecution of this task but continue it to-day
by publishing the provisions of the Maryland law,
which is in force in the District of Columbia also The
library at command does not enable us to go
through with this publication as expedously as we
desire We forced therefore, to rely the public
Libraries in this city and our abors would be vastly
abridged the members Of Congress from the several
slaVenO.unB oattS WOulu DC 10 IuInlsl
with references the legislative action of their States
this subec-especialy with references to laws amend
aory Of original statutes
| Since we published the law of Virginia. which gives
to every person held slave in that State the right to
trial BY jwy,H Of expense TO test the fact OF slavery
we have noticed that OF the higher law advocates
have endeavoed to eyade the force Of southern legsla
ton, by affirming that if savehoding State like yr
hao rirhf auch laua al,
holding State like Vermont has a right 10 pass similar
laws giving the trial by jury in its own courts to per-
sons claimed slaves But there manifest absurdy
in this Virginia does give the right Of trial by jury
to persons claimed slaves under the ia.Os Of another
State She only gives that right persons held slaves
by vrfue Of her own la,os. She has nothing do with
helaws regulating slavery in Maryland North Car
DINA. and she does pretend to give trial by jury
to persons claimed in her borders slaves under
the iascs Of her sister States When such claim
is presented she obeys the constitution, and per-
mits the proper officers surrender the person claimed,
that he may be carried to the rghfu urisdcton-pre
cisey she would surrender fugitive from justice
the proper officers to carry him into the ghtfu srisdic
ton. If slaves held under the laws of Vermont
then Vermont would have the right to give TO persons
thus held slaves under her ldUs the right before
her Tribunals the fact whether they entitled free
dom under those laws. But she has right say that
Vermont court or Vermont jury shall sit in judgment
on the laws of Maryland Virginia, and say whether
person claimed under the constitution slave, accord
ing TO the laws Of Maryland Virginia is really slave
according TO those laws. Vermont might properly
dertake to empower her courts and ures 10 sit in udg
men on the penal laws of Maryland or Virginia, and
anasraks give them the say whether muir
derer horse thief demanded fugitive from justice
from either of those States thief murderer
cordng to The laws of those States.
The provision of the constitution relative TO the
der of fugitves from justice and ugves from labor OF
the nature of exradon treaty. The duty to deusr
up is plain and explicit; and in neither has the
State which the fugitive has taken refuge the right
sit in judgment the laws Of the State from whence he
fled The idea is ridiculous and absurd and il never
could have originated in honest and dspassiona,e
mind |, never had its birth in homes, regard for the
constitution but il sprang from blind and dishonest
isnaticism.
The constitution, as have said, requires the dev-
cry of fugitive from justice, trusting TO the laws OF the
State from which he has fed TO give him fair trial
before condemnation and punishment The is the
same with regard TO fugitves from service. They must
be delivered up leaving to the laws Of the State from
which they have fled TO take that ali the principles OF
the constitution shall be carried out within its borders
Our present purpose is to prove, that the saveholing
States have not been reiss bu, that they have afforded
to those held slaves within their borders ample means
10 establish their freedom, if they be free We have al
ready given the law Of Virginia. We will not recapu-
late its liberal provisions. We present below the law OF
Mary land and the Dstric, Of Columbia
act Of I7e6-Chaptr 81.
$40 q. Ind be 1t enacted, That petition or pc
tons freedom shall hereafter in tho general
OF either Shore, but shall and be tried opy
in the where such petitioner petitioners shall
side under the direction OF his her, their
tres and the of the county in which such
petition petitions shall be preferred shall have full
and authority TO issue against such master, mistress
owner for the purpose Of compelling his her appear
directed sheriff OF the county where such
turn such IN the If Issued by the
county OF his county and in OF neg delay
OF such sheriff and such process he
be fined by the court issuing such process.
Sac. q Had BE- IL furthr enacted, That IN all petitions
now depending, hereafter DO enced, free.
dom either the petitioner de endapt msy apply
count for the benefit OF trial by and the shall
charge the law directs the attending jury
determine each and all of the allegations contained
said petitions which may be controversial any law
or custom 10 the contrary Notwithstanding
SIC 23 Iives appeal and bills OF both
parties matters of law orbddng either the foc
determined by the Jury ]
SIC ~ tGves each party the privilege of challenging
peremptorly tceps Jurors
Sro. q. Provides that attorney for petitioner shall
pay costs, u the petition be dismissed tho judgment
the trial he against the petirione unless the ha be
Of opnion that, under all the ccumsances there was
probable grosnd suppose that the petitioner petition
ers hadn right 10 freedom-a wholesome check to
I iDua ttopl