New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-04-14

n .Lof ypa AZ gFeW
spr,ender three persons who were demanded by
The Executive Of ennsylvania, as charged With
the crime Of kidnapping free mao In the latter
state The Executive Of Virginia refused to
comply with this request, although the Con'alto'
tion made it his duty, on the ground that no le-
gislston had ever prescribed the manner ID
which ard the person by whom sach surrender
should be made II An State Papers, miscel
lapeous 30, 3gl President w Washington on the re-
ones. ~ the Executive Of Pennsylvanl lad tue
matter before Congress, and thus the act oil 10
was passed. The attention OF Congress oe.ns
directed only 10 the case oil iagltVes RON -s'ioe'
thew seern 10 have overlooked the distinction De
tusen sncb fugitives and those held to service
and provided the same summary proceedings io5
the surrender Of both So far az the act deyoVed
upoD State officers the duty OF It's execution u
was pronounced by the supreme Court unc'l'
stitutional See Martin vs.. Hunters Lessee
Wheaton. 3O6. Also, Prgg vs.. Penn. Common
wealtb. rs Peters 63Ol This restricted the oper
alton Of the act TO q very limited range, ana tue
small number OF cases arising under II, 90 no,
seem 10 have excited general inquiry INTO us
conssitutonality. But 1t seems to me the as
tirctiopa ! have sdverted TO- snow that no SFSu
ment in favor Of the fugitive slave act can DC
drawn from the usage OF nations, or the provision
of the Constit1ton in conformity to 1t Wnlch regu
lates the extraditiOn OF criminals. These relate
70 a public ofender-the act in question seeks -
enforce q private right-the former IS regq ated
by the public authorties-the latter IS claim n
stituted by an individual-the former is premln-
ary and contempases a future trial az the proper
pace-the latter s conclusive OF the right Tor the
time and probably forever, and neither looks %
nor needs any future trial. lin my Judgment, the
claim Of service securef by the Constitution.
if il requires law 70 enforce It, and II Congress
can pass such law, can only be provided Tor by
I. an act which secures the trial Of question IN
Irregular suit before jury. The seveath amend
: ment TO the Constitution provides that Ia suits
at common law, where the value Ia controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right OF trial
by Jury shall be preserved, &C. ms amend
nent as well az the fith, which declares that
"no person shall be deprived OF life liberty or
property, without due process oflRN, grew ont OF
the opposition manifested 20 the adoption OF the
Constitution, because it did not IN terms, pro-
vide for the trial by jury Ia civil cases. 1t 10
needless to remind American OF the anxiety
with which this Institution has been WATCHED
Ii is we'll described by Mr.. Justice Story, In the
case of Parsons vs. Bedford, Peters 4i6 jas
tice Story also explains what 10 meant by suit
at common law" in the section quoted. II COW
ers all suits, except those OF equity, admiralty or
maritime jurisdiction and the judiciary act Of
1889, chap 20, sections Q, T. ana B. carries this
construction into practical operation. 1t viii
hardly be claimed that Congress can take case
which entities party to Jury, and deprive MIN
Of & Jury by converting itinto asummary proceed
ing, or that they can In the same way deprive hlm
q
law If they could do this, the trial by Jury aud the
due process Of law secured by the Constitution,
become a mockery Treating this as mere
question Of property exceeding twenty dollars in
value, entertain no doubt that it is a case where
jury trial is secured by the Constitution II
twill be remarked that the provision rs to
persons held to service has no reference TO the
color Of the person skin who is thus held, nor 70
the kind or degree Of service. The word "seye
was purpoSely omitted from the Constitution;
and although ] think that this relation was the
one in the mind of the trainers of the Constitution
when this section was drawn, still its language,
and the language of the act In question, embraces
apprentices, and all other persons held to service.
If Jury trial, then, is not secured where a claim
Of service is made, the remarkable result would
be that, if claimant from New Orleans demands
my writing desk at New. York, he must try titles
with me here before a Jury, but If he demands
me, l can have no such trial lsthere difference
between a claim OF labor and a claim Of other
property and is the difference such that, when
the claim Of labor involves the liberty OF person,
the defendant forfeits the right OF trial by Jury,
~ may be said that person seized can try the
Question of his reht to freedom by 9TX a. the
be sure, to q man whose freedom has been de-
stroyed by seizure and transportation from he
home; and if he could get his witnesses 70 the
place where the claimant concludes to take him,
he could have trial But the act In question
provides no Jury trial anywhere there Is no o0-
legation on the claimant 10 take the person ne
SEXES to ary particular place; and II l have
night to try the question ottitle 70 property hold
at the place where toe property IL, and where the
demand is made, how can It be argued that have
no such right when the demand made IS for my
thews and sinewsl 1t is urged that iures would
not render yerdicts in favor of claimants where
the right was established. This does not cores
pond with my observation Of jury trials. On the
contrary whatever prejudice jurors may feel
against a law, have hardly ever known them to
fail in obey ing the directions OF the Court upon a
point oflRw. 1t is also suggested, that the eX.
pense ofrecOvering a fugitive by this mode would
amount to a destruction Of the right. If such an
evil exists it is incident to this unfortunate rela
ton. 1t certainly furnishes no reason why the
Constitution should be violated, and safeguard
broken down in reference to the liberty OF hui
man being which is secured TO him IN defending
q horse or bale OF cottonW
But am passing far beyond the limits OF let
ter and devoting more time to the answer OF your
note than / can well snatch from professional en-
gagemens. | must pass over the objection 70
that provision which devOlyes the duties OF
Court upon Commissioners tribunal unknown
70 the Constitution. can only glance at the pro-
vision at the close Of the sixth section Of the act,
which declares, that the certificate granted under
it shall be conclusive Of the right Of the claimant
10 remove the alleged fugitive, and shall prevent
all mOleststion of such person by any process Is
sued by any court nudge, magistrate, or other
person whatsoever In my opinion, this prOvl-
sion suspends the privilege OF the writ of hsbess
corpus in case not excepted by the Constta-
ton. am aware that the Attorney. General Of
the United States has decided that party seized
under this act, may still have the writ Of hsbeas
corpus but if it appears on the return TO It that
he is held under warrant OF certificate, issued
in conformity to this act, hs must be remRnded TO
the custody Of the marshal or the claimant. The
virtue Of writ Of hSbess corpus is that it enables
party to institute an inquiry into the cause of
bis imprisonment, and il he is not charged with
crime or committed by the final judgment Of a
court Of competent Jurisdiction, as q general rule,
70 be discharged, unless the righ. to detAn him is
established by proof This | understand to be
" lie rtrtlecel nj tina writ rnaRnt by the CnnAti