Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1853-08-27

ton was framed. for slavery then exist,
about one hall the States. Before the aI IN
OF that instrument slaves had been ra.i p'on
10 various ways, In many instances bv ,e''a'Fed
IN others by unrestricted force =, comfy.
lsied virtual, practical compron;s "ere ex.
he written compromise of II e 49, oeore
But difficulties had arisen, and ,berae u'ion.
provision. e'ore this
Nor can there be doubt that IL
persons held to service or labor Term,
principally TO persons held as slaves Ar aPpIles
lson, " bile asserting to the provision :, Mad.
To- the use OF the term slave beca,,'' "Jected
pressed thing repugnant to his So. ex
he did not wish the idea that one n ns"'''nens;
hold property in another recognised - eoasd
garlic law of his country. u" The Or
This has been termed an er pay,e nr,o ;.
1t certainly is not. Had the couns,1 seeding.
Query been able to state that thew 'o' Nc
to prove his freedom, should p,omn,r ~P'cied
granted continuance, to afford am,i nave
for the collection of such proof Ocon. lime
the sacred office OF Judge, have M r;uI!g
to indulge my sympalhes. 1t womb "efe
been gratifying 10 have found that tb;s i rd'e
ant was free man. instead ola slave He'e"u'
such result is gratifying to thos. vbos De'Suse
ings are opposed TO slavery in the abs,r.. 'eels
such case it is the stern duty of the Ia In
use more than ordinary caution. s' 10
1t was urged against the conslitu,;on.,
the laws Of 1898 and ls5O,that thew ,,an"i OF
right of trial by jury. 1t is nv opinion "I p me
upon my Jndicial experience, that trial H.
jury would not decl ease the number of rouJ
tons of per ons escaped from service or H.
bor.' In an instance that call to nv mini
decided anti slavery man was upon iurv -
case involving the liberty of escaped sIayes :" q
But he considered the solemniry of his os,b :
support the law and the constitution and h.
greed with his brethren 10 give verdict e
damages against the persons through wbcsa
fundamentally the slaves had escaped
This IS not final decision as to the Eber,
of the defendant. The question hereis s,r;c,,
whether he owes service or labor to the ca;o:
ant, but this decision will be no ba o the onoo
ton as to the liberty ofthe man. He NAV he
sold; his condition may be wretched: but tbs
fault is not with the judiciary,
1t is principle universally admitted that ;,
law may be in part constitutional end in ano,l,.
er part void, and that effect may be given 10
those parts which are constitutional. d.
not ny this wish TO intimate that any part of the
laws OF 93 and so are in conflict with the or.
ganic law.
IL may not be improper for me here TO sug
} gest that there Is one par, of the law of Sc
mat does not seem to be rightly understood
The clause allowing $40 to the commissioner
IN case the certificate is made out to the ma.
ter and 50 II no certificate is given, was. as
think, intended merely to compensate that off
Ger tor The extra writing, " hich may be con
siderable, and even not covered by the sum
S5,j IN Consequence of the statement of The
case and the certificate. Sitting as JUDGE ri
the Supreme Court and not as a Commission
, err, may properly make this remark.
The laws of 1898 and 1850, as regards this
case are clearly within the provisions of the
Constitution. am therefore bound to remand
the fugitive to his master
Alter this decision, the counsel for the de-
; fence moved for writ of cer,iorari to the SUI
, preme Court.
The Court said that there could be no ap
peal from the decision of JUDGE of the Su
f Preme Court of the United States made al
chambers. He was willing, however, to give
any reasonable time for counsel TO ipyestipstt
, the question.
AT the suggestion of the Court, it was final,
arranged that the claimant, Mr. MILLER, shoull
enter into bond for two thousand dollars
conditioned upon his returning Moo uery II
The state OF Ohio in case it should be decided
that the case could be taken to the Suprem,
= Court.