Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-12-18

cient missionary Of freedom TO the thousands
who need its influence. This edition is neatly
printed and firmly stitched in paper covers, price
thirty. seven and a-half cents. For sale by
the publishers and by booksellers generally
through the country. Those who wish it 10 this
neighborhood can procure it Of Joel McAIillen
at his book store in Salem.
The publishers also promise German edition
about the first Of January. We are glad to
hear it, and hope Stark and Wayne counties
may be inundated with them. Those who wish
beautiful and valuable gifts for the holidays can
hardly do better than procure the superbly il
lustrated edition now issued.
An argument on the Fugitive Slave Act, BY
Thomas H. Talbot of the Cumberland Bar
Maine. Boston, Bella Marsh, No. 25 Cornhill
1852, p. l2s.
We are indebted to the Publisher for copy
Of this original and truly able and interesting
work. The author proceeds without circumlo-
cution, to inquire what is the constitutional
provision in regard to fugitive slaves-what are
the statute provisions-and what tho decisions.
He takes the position that tho rendition is to be
made in the State to which the fugitive has
cscaped-ond is an absolute delivery of prop.
crty. to the clpimant in tho labor and person OF
the fugitive. His right to the slave, is without
limitation. Decisions of the Court arc quoted
sustaining this point--Ex. Judge Story, who
declares that the clause Of the constitution
places the masters right on the same ground,
and 10 the same extent in every other state, as
in the state from whence he escaped, and that
the master has the right of recapture, precisely
as under tho local laws of his own state-nnd
further that he has the right of removal from
and through the free states as in his own slave
state. In short that the rendition article, con-
tcmplatcd the extension of slave state laws
over the entire Union, in the case of the fug-
tive-hs delivery to his claimant as property
with all the rights attendant upon its posses
sion while removing him.
Having thus ascertaincd the requisitions of
the constitution, the writer proceeds to compare
the late fugitive act herewith, and pronounces
il unconstitutional because it falls short of the
rcquisition. Granting, not the delivery of the
slave as property, CHE sole right conferred by
The consttdtion.) but only the right of removal,
4 right unconlcrred in the constitution, except
rs embodied in the right of property. Again
It is unconstitutional inasmuch as it returns the
fugitive at the expense Of the government. 1t
being solely the business OF the master. A
beautiful confusion and conflict, the writer here
presents, not only between the act and the con-
sttution, but between Judges on the one hand,
and Judges and Commissioners on the other.
The act Of 1850, and its interpreters and ex-
cutors, set aside the constitutional provision,
not without cause. For though it gave the
master what he claimed, his right of property,
and inclusively, his right Of removal, yet in
the face of an opposing public sentiment, and
in the absence of Massachusetts law for the safe
custody and return of Thomas Sims, his claim
ant had rather q hard task, to return him to
Georgia. To aid slavery in that emergency,
Commissioner Curtis and Judge Sprague, af-
frmed that the masters right, conferred by the
act was not one of absolute property" 6ut a
right to hare him returned 10 Georgia, at tic pub
lie expense. Thus economically avoiding all
difficulty and any amount Of danger. 1t is due
to the author to say that he attributes this rath
or to the carelessness of Congress, than to in
tenton, innsmuch as the act provides in one
section for the delivery in the state from whence
the escape was made, and in another, in the
state to which he had escaped.
We cannot follow the author through his in
quiry into the nature of the action; whether
it be preliminary or final. His conclusion of
course, is that it is final nction. But he af-
firms that the wickedncss of the law is manifest.
as well as its unconsttutonality, IN that it
commits the final decision in regard to the lib
critics of tho individual, not to the ordinary
forms and process of law, but to the caprice of
n mere ministerial officer; thus removing all
legal barriers between actual liberty and actual
slavery. There have been, he truly says, lost
in this act, "the trial by jury-thc sacredness
of the judicial Office, and the greater part of
the law Of evidence"
We give the closing paragraph of tho book /:
Though the author has proved that the fugitive
act is unconstitutional in form, he has equally
proved that IS constitutional m intent. How
then he can Affirm, with his own demonstrations
before him, that st tho constitution is no accom-
plioe, that the Union has no part in the guilt"
is more than VIC can imagine 1t is a patriotic
flourish not at all in keeping with the logic of
the book.
Ye who believe in justice, still cling to
your faith and the hope it inspires. The
Courts will not always turn u deaf ear TO
arguments. If they do not Immediately
walk III the light of common justice and Il
LAW HIGHER than human, they will at least,
ere long, return to the safe line of legal pre-.
cedenl, and once more, follow the established
authorities. The milton is not SO thorough