New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-04-17
SaGitive Slave Law-Theory and Practice.
10 ne Editor Of the NJ " Tribsa<:

10 ne Editor Of the N. y. TSibEss:
The conduct of Mr.. Commissioner Nor
ton In the case of Horace Preston affords singular con-
menary upon the euloges that bsve been passed n'n
the act for reclaing gives Among the more notice
able points In the proceedings were the following
The Affidavit ON which the warrant was based OF the
ou,rersbn and the escape were made by person who
had never seeu Preston until the day the trial COM
menced and had 10 personal knowledge OF the iacts
sworn to.
The Commissioner refused TO compel the witnesses
for the claimant 20 answer on crossexaminafion ne
clane that he had power TO do So and refused 70
follow the ruling Of Judge Judson, in the Cuba case In
the matter of Butnetts testimony and strike out tne
testimony Of Reese who replied TO questions on cross
examination. NUNS the word"
8 The Commissioner declined to order the Aarsnai
or any other officer to subpcnas upon the WIZ
nesses for the defenseand the Msrhals representative
frankly admitted that it the practice Of their ONCE
to serve process in behalf of alleged fugitves
4. The Commissioner disregarded all the ordinary
rules of evidence in admitting Recess declaration OF
hearsay evidence prove the title Of the Claimant when
il appeared that bill of SALE ante nupsl contract BY
which the title had passed. in existence, and no
cause shown for its non-producton
s. The Comn1is sioner granted a certificate which
doomed Preston to slavery in the face OF an offer by his
counsel to produce rebutng evidence in favor Of his
right to freedom
Now compare this onesided conduct Of Mr.. Commits
sioner Norton constituting very mockery of Law and
Justice with that of Judge er in the Garnet in
Philadelphia where, under similar circumstances the
Court discharged the party because the proper docu
ments and nrniments of title not produced and
proven The following an extract from the letter Of
lid (ro Tho IN Esn
dated Oct IS, 1885, and commend it to Mr. Aortons
attentive perusal:
In the Garnett case the warrant issued by the Court
was founded on the affidavit of the alleged owner of the
fugitive But on the trial hearing before the Court
after the arrest this affidavit was not received in ev
dence did the counsel for the claimant insist that 1t
should be received The claimant had wholly neglected
to make the proper proof before Court Judge
in Maryland to establish the fact that he was owner OF
q slave or person held to labor and what the nane
age SIZE and other marks Of such person. and that the
person described had escaped Not having availed
himself of the privileges and facilities given him by the
act of Congress for this purpose, we decided that he
must be bound by the common law rules OF evidence as
In other where title TO property has TO be esab
shed before Court We refused TO receive the par
ties in interest witnesses and wills and other docu
ments Of title, unless properly proved
The act contempafes a trial and decision of the
Court or Judge involving questions Of law and fact and
unless the rules of the common law as to evidence be
followed when not changed by statute, the tribunal
would be without rule governed only by caprice, or un
defined discretion which would be the exercise of ty
rannica not Judicial power. 1t is the duty Of the Judge
who exercises it to render equal justice, both to the
claimant and the person claimed If evidence were
heard side only and that, too, without any re-
gard to any rule principle known to the law, gross
oppression and wrong would flow from it. Freemen
and citizens of Pennsylvania might be kidnapped into
bondage under the forms of law, and by the action OF
legal tribunal 10 do equal and exact justice TO all
men. This much maigned law not only gives trial
before the legal tribunal before the claimant can be au-
ell f,,oifiv tho
but it takes away from the prisoner right which he
would have enjoyed before this act OF Congress was
passed.
Nolawyer would urge before court such an
absurd construction of the act of Congress- that
that evidence shall be heard the part of the
alleged fugitive If such the intention of the Legis
ature it easy express it in unequvoca terms In
truth there nothing equvoca in the language OF the
act it orbids the Judge to hear the testimony of the
fugitive but not the testimony of disnterested witnesses
1t almost seems that nothing but desire TO render the
law odous for the sake of political agitation could
have led to gross amsconstrucon and gross libel
ON our National Legislature.