The daily union., 1852-04-14


1850, known as the fuglliye-slave law He ealIs Z
everything bad-and he has put the question d me Az
recy, n subsSnce whether did not think that acl d,s
graceful 10 The country That was not the term usea
he used one lar more degrading In soundbut that ur.
sune was the meaning OF the gentleman He lhinfs 4
disgraceul that act should be passed BY Congress
allowing persons to come here n free State and esuv
on human beings and place them again in slavery
Well, will answer the gentlemanand there are two
that under the decision o The supreme Court Of ,bs in
ted Slaes and OF the several States il has been decided
again and again, that slaves under the constitution
property. Now, the right of an owner of property 10
peacea6ly recapue il wherever he can 6nd Il a. oH
as the common law itself
The second is. that the act OF 18th Of Septem
ber $780, for the restoration OF fugtyes from labor con
tains nothing than is contained in substance In tbs
constitutional provision that subject Ii is simply car
yin9 into effect the constitution of the country. and cam
not help thinking that the opposition from hose
who not at all loyal 10 their own government
am pleased TO see that the President OF the Uni
led States who belongs TO the same party to which the
ter perfectly hold in my hand extract from his ast
message. which will read for the edifcaon Of the gem
eman, although he has no, himself spoken very ga.
The President most uuthfuily says
Some objections have been urged against the details Of
the for the OF iugses from labor; bu, il is wor
thy Of remark that the opposition is aimed again.t
the constitution ITSELF and proceeds from persons and class
Of persons, many whom declare their wish see that
constitution overturned They their hostility 10 sny
law which shall give full and practical effect this require
persons is com paalively small and believed be daily
diminishing; but the which they present is one which
involves tho supremacy and even the existence Of the
stitution
denied The binding authority Of acts OF Congress- and
States have proposed to nuly such acts the ground
that The constitution the supreme law Of the land and
that those of Congress repugnant that insrn
ment but nnlicauon Is now aimed not SO much against
laws as being WIN the constitution
gulsed that spirit exists and has been actively AZ work.
ance from our revolutionary fathers"
am sorry to say that the gentleman from Chester has
evinced strong affinity for the class OF here de-
sgnatedthose who believe that the constitution OF bs
happy country is "a league with the devil and cove
nant OF hell"
am the more fully convinced Of this fact, nasmuch
the gentleman from Chester has denounced the law IN
question for the additional reason that it does not give
the fugitive trial by jury Now, sir undertake to say
that such thing not only not required by the consu
tion, but that il would be gross absurdty The par.
ael provision OF that instrument in relation TO the res
toaton OF fugltves from Justice is construed
No man would dream OF trying person in Pennsylvania
OF Maryland, for example, for crime committed in the
latter State. All that done is for the governor Of this
State TO allow the requison and the fugitive removed
to the State where he committed the offence So in
case OF fugitive from labor How would we Try a case
OF that kind here! How swear Jury to determine an
issue not known to our own laws. and only within the
cognizance of the laws Of the State from which the ugi-
j tve escapeds Would not the jury have 10 determine
what was the law Of another Siate instead OF an issue
ai1 sn'h 81 Is Pseo s
TO- do with the rendition OF fugtives from labor,
which is so loudly conended for BY those who sustain
the of ls47 and rely upon the case OF Prgg 10 sus-
tain them those tribunals would have everything to do in
cases OF this kind II the fugitive claims his freedom, he
can have trial in the State from which he fled.
But ii ii not legally impossible would it not
be virtual denial OF the rights Of the southern people,
under the constitution, TO have trials by jury in Of
fugityes from labor' How could slave owner
from Georgia and reclaim his slave under law OF that
kinda The case would be subject 10 being continued,
and a thousand contingencies, which abolition lawyers
(of whom we have one or two in almost every county,
I Ifn ha NfafaA flu and nj
successful practice. to postpone thwart trial Then
the saveowner must have his Witnesses here must fee
former servant in rough and tumble fight in our
OF law. Such remedy would be woss, and would cost
more in the end 10 say nothing Of the humiliang spec
tacc it would prevent, than the loss OF the slave II
would be complete denial of the constitutional right
And yet my friend from Chester is loudly in its favor.
and urges the want OF as one OF the great defects in the
fugiiveslave law. In thus matter he is again following
high example, and agreeing with large portion oil his
whig brethren IN the northern States l: Is not modern
doctrine with them either. | happened 10 meet with
resolution yesterday in newspaper, adopted BY awhg
State convention held in New Hampshire November S,
1916, which accods exactly with the views Of the gen.
| ueman from Chester. .tf
| Ii is in these words
"Resoired, That the law Of Congress OF February H.
l7s3 under which any person claimed as slave may be
however ignorant corrupt, OF the State slavery
without the charge OF his being slave having been uied
IN his defence, is unjas, and dangerous to the liberty ohs
citizen, and ought 10 be repealed"
The gentleman from Chester makes the complaint
against the act OF 1850 that his whig brethren OF New
i Hampshire did against the old law of l793 adopted In
Washngton's time. There have been many expressions
OF sentiment throughout the whole North for years aml.
lar 10 that contained in this New Hampshire resolution;
but it is often they boldly avowed in legs
laiive halls they have been by the gentleman from
Chester But he has again the example OF the late ex.
ecuiive OF the Commonwealth (Gov Johnsionl in sus,
tanning the extreme opinion he has expressed in relation
TO giving the fugitive a trial by jury.
The late executive in his annual message, read in the
house of representatives January 8, 1885, clearly lni
mates that be favor of giving the slave trial BY
most dsnily and unequivocally, "modhcaion and
amendment Of the ugiivesave law, then but recently
passed. He denounced in strong terms the tribunal oil
commissioners set by that ACT to determine upon men
rights, and, among other remarkable things made use oil
these remarkable Words "if il be deemed expedlent 70
deny trial by jury-p!anly expressing doubt whether
80. and that therefore il might be expeden not TO
deny "a trial by jury or in other words might Dc ne
expedent deny such trial. and expedent TO grant inai
privilege. 80
Now, sir, on this subjec: | have met with curious
remniscence-one which goes far to show the devious
and winding ways OF who mere politicians ana
who have aspirations to be considered sfaesmen-o
who watch the popular breeze, the gathering OF pun
lie sentiment, and float along upon the current, w'nou
caring further than that It may carry them into position
and power Governor Johnston did always entertain
the legislature the subject considering 10
the year 1887 he democratic member OF this house.
elected from Armstrong county, Crom which you, ST.
hal) for the session OF S3637 On the 9Th oil Janu
uary, 1897, petition presented to the House, pray
ing the legislature TO pass law giving trial by juryn
ugitves from labor; and the question being on s refer
ence 10 an appropriate committee, the democratic repre-
ntanla