The daily union., 1852-09-29

false oalhs, forged papers, and facile and
takes from him every safeguard Now, II the slave.
holder has right TO be al home the enjoymen,
OF Slavery so also has the free man OF the Norih--and
every person there is presumed TO be tree man-an
equal right TO be at home in the enjoyment oil free
dom The same principle OF State rights. by which sla-
very is protected in the slave States, throws It's inpene-
tabe shield over freedom in the free States And here.
lei me say is the only security for slavery IN the slave
States as for free in the free States In the present
faal overthrow oil State rights, you teach lesson which
may return 10 plague the teacher Compelling the ma
tiona government 10 stretch liz Brarean into the
Tree States Tor the sake OF slavery you show openly how
may stretch these hundred giant inlo the
slave States for the sake oil freedom. This lesson was
moi taught by our fathers
And here end this branch OF the question. The true
principles OF our political system, the history OF the
national convention, the natural Interpretation OF the
convention. all teach that this act is nsupation by Con-
gess Of powers that do not belong TO it. and ntrac-
ton Of rights secured 10 The States sasword, whose
handle is al the national Capitol, and whose point is
everywhere in the States. weapon so terrible 10 per-
sonal liberty the nation has no power to grasp. p
(a) And nov Of the denial Of trial by jury. Admit
ting, for the moment, that Congress is in,rusted with
power over this subject, which truth dsowns, still the
act is again radically unconstitutional from lis denial OF
trial by jury in aqaestion OF personal liberty and suit
at common law Since, on the side, there claim
OF property, and on the other OF liberty, both property
and liberty involved in the ISSUE To this claim
either side is attached trial by jury.
To sir, regarding this matter in the light OF the
common law and in the blaze OF free institutions, has
always seemed impossible to arrive at any other concu-
sion. II the language OF the constitution were open to
doubt which il not, still all the presumptons Of law,
all the eanings for freedom all the suggestions OF JUS
tce. plead angel tongued for this right Nobody doubts
that Congress- ii it egsaies on this matter, may allow
trial by jury. But il il may. overwhelming is the
claim Of justice, il MUST Beyond this. however the
question Is determined by the precise letter OF the con-
stliution.
Several expressions in the provision for the surrender
OF fugtves from labor show the essential character OF
the proceedings In the first place. the person must be
not merely Charged as in the case Of ugitives from JUS
ce, but actually held 10 labor in the Stale from which he
escaped In the second place. he must be delivered up
claim OF the party TO whom such labor is due" These
facts, that he held labor, and that his labor
due 10 his claimant. directly placed in issue and
must be proved Two necessary incidents of the deliv
cry may also be observed-frs it must be made in the
State where the fugitive found and secondly itresores
to The claimant his complete control the person OF
the fugitive. From these circumstances is evident that
the proceedings be regarded, any just
preliminary. anclary TO some future formal trial. but
as complete in hemselves--fna and conclusive.
And these proceedings determine, the sde the
question OF property, and the other the sacred ques
ton Of personal liberty in it's most anscendant form
not merely liberty for day or year bu for life and
the Liberty of generations that shall after, long
as slavery endues To these questions, the cons,iu
ton by two specific provisions attaches the trial by jury
One Of these the h familiar eaase , already adased
tcttout due process Of aW; that is, without due pro.
ceedings at law, with trial ay jury: Not stopping to
dwell on this press a. once to the other provision,
which is still more express 'ln suits at common law,
where The value in controversy shall exceed twenty dol
lars the rgh, of trial by jury shall be preserved This
clause, which was not in the original constitution, was
suggested by the spirit OF freedom Al the close OF
the national convention, Elbridge Gerry refused TO sign
the constitution BECAUSE among other things, II esab
lished "a tribunal waaout iure'. Star Chamber to
civil cases. Many united in his opposition. and the
recommendation OF the first Congress-, this additional
safeguard adopted as amendment
Now regarding the question as one OF property, or OF
personal liberty in either alternative the trial by jury is
secured for this position authority ample In The de-
bate on the fugitye.save bill OF lSl7-ls senator from
South Carolina (Mr. Smih) anxious for the asserted
right OF property, objected this very oor, 10 refer
OF The question, under the writ OF habG corpus TO
Judge without jury. Speaking solely for property,
these were his words:
the right Of properly the claims in his slaves. In
stead Of uyaE that right by jury as prescribed by the
Of fact, clothed witn all the powers Of court
Such principle Is uuknown Ia your system oi lurispru-
dence. Your constitution has forbid IT, Is preserves the
right OF trial by Jury in all the vniue 10
yrrsy exceeds twenty dolar-Aiol' ~ Ngf'oHat iHit'
ffgeneer, Jtae To- 1878.
But this provision has been repeatedly discussed by the
Supreme Court that its meaning not open TO doubt
Three conditions are necessaTy-hrs the proceedings
mus, be "a suit secondly, - al common law !" and
thirdly where the value in controversy exceeds twenty
dollars" In every such the right OF trial by jury
shall be preserved The decisions OF the Supreme Court
expressly touch each OF these points.
First In The case Of Cohensv %, Virginia. 20 Wheaton,
407) the court say;
What Is n Mir We undsr,taol Il to b. the prosecu.
ton ol some eiaim, demand, or reqnesth
OF course, then, the " claim" for iugiye aust be
+" suit"
Secondly ln the case Of parsons w Bedford, (s Pc
ers 456) while considering this very clause the cour,
say;
BY copmoa Lro is meant ma, merely suits which The
law recognised among s Old and etted proceed
nEs hat IN witch legal rights bs asceuained
aud determined Ia Just sense the amendment may well
be contrued 20 embrace R sps which oi an equ
admiralty ursdicton, whatever may be the pecuer
form which they may assume 70 settle legal rights"
Now, since the claim for fugitive ia not a suit in
equity admiralty, but suit ID settle what are called e
gal rights, must, of course, be "a suit q. common
law
Thirdly In tho case Of Lee u, Lee IS Peters, AL on
a question whether " the value in controversy"
one thousand dollars and upwards" il was objected
that The appellants, who petitioners for freedom,
were not OF the value Of one thousand dollars But the
court said
"9ns mattet IN dsputs ~ the freedom of tho petitioners
This is not seeptble Of pecunay ytlualon No doubt
Is enerla med Of the jurisdiction Of the oouIt"
OF course then, since liberty is above price, the claim
TO aay fugitive always necessarily presumes that the
value in controversy exceeds twenty doafs"
by these successive steps, sustained BY decisions oi
the highest tribunal appears as IN diagram that the
right OF trial by Jury is secuei 10 the iGgl1e IRON labor
This conclusion needs no further authority; but u may
receive oofous illustration from the ancient records OF
the common law so familiar and dear TO the trainers OF
the constitution IL Is said by Mr. Burke IN his mag
nlhcent speech conciliaion with America, that
nearly "a many OF Blacksioness Commentaries were
sold in Ametcs as in Englaod," carrying ihilher the
knowledge OF those vital principles oi freedom which
were the boast OF The British constitution. lmnued by
these the earliest Continental Congress- in l77 declared
that the respective colonies entitled 70 the common
aw oil Eng land, and especially 10 the great and inesna
- k.tf NJ