The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-06-23

"Howevef much therefore, We may dspiore
the existence OF slavery in any part Of the Union,
as national as well as local evil, yet, as the
right of the master to reclaim his fugitive slave
is secured 10 him by The federal Constitution,
no good citizen, whose liberty and property -
protected by that Constitution, will interfere TO
prevent this provision from being carried into
full effect, according to its spirit and effect and
even where the forms OF law are resorted TO for
the purpose Of eyading the constitutional pro-
vision, or TO delay the remedy OF the master In
obtaining a return of bis fugitive slave, It IS un-
doubtedy the right, and may become the duty,
of the court in which any proceedings for That
purpose are instituted, to set them aside, IT they
are not commenced aud carried on in good faith,
and upon probable grounds for believing that
the claim of the master TO the service of the sup
posed slave is invalid"
In the case Of the Commonwealth us Griffin,
Chief Justice Parker, of Massachusetts,, holds
this language;
A" This brings the case TO single point,
whether the statute of the United States, giving
power to seize a slave without warrant, IS
constitutional tits difficult, 10 case like this,
for persons who are not inhabitants OF slave
holding States, to prevent prejudice from having
too strong an effect on their minds. We must
reflect, however, that the Constitution was made
with some States, in which il would not occur
to the mind to inquire whether slaves were pro-
perty 1t WIS a very serious question when they
came to make the Constitution, what would be
done with their slaves. They might have kept
aloof from the Constitution That instrument
was a compromise. 1t was compact by which
all are bound We are to consider, then, what
was the intention of the Constitution. The
words or n tyara uqnd out of decacV so aa not Ia
offend some ia the convention whose feelings
were abhorrent to slavery bat we there entered
| into an agreement that slaves should be consid
cred as property. Slavery would still have con
tinued if 10 Constitution had been made.
"The Constitution does not prescribe the
mode of retaining a slave, but leaves it to bs
determined by Congress 1t is very clear thai
il was not intended that application should b,
made to the executive authority of the State
1t is said that the act of Congress has passed oil
this subject, is contrary to the amendment o
the Constitution, securing the people in thei
persons and property against seizure, &c, with
out complaint upon oath. But all the parts o
the instrument are to be taken together. II il
very obvious that slaves are not parties to th'
! Constitution, and the amendment has relation
to the parties.
6 1t is said that when seizure is made, i
should be made conformably to our laws. Thi
does not follow from the Constitution and TIL
act of Congress says that the person to whom
the service is due may seize, &c. Whether tn
statute is a harsh one, is not for US to determine
/ But il is objected, that person may in thi
summary manner seize a freeman. IL may b.
so, but this would be attended with mischievou
consequences to the person making the seizure.
/ CONCLUSION TOMORROW.