The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1853-09-02
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE Law CON-
STITUTIONAL.
JUDoE McLEAN's OrIsIoS.

day we proceed to give our readers his opin-
ion at length, as VIC find it reported in the
Cincinnati Gaseite. 1t is not well reported
but the main propositions are clearly and dis.
tinctly announced. After Mr.. BIRNEY had
finished his argument for the fugitive and
Dir. WARE had closed for the claimant, Judge
MCLEAN said:
In giving my views in this case, it may not
be improper to recitc the manner in which
this case came before me. First, issued a
habeas on an application maintaining that he
was illegally deprived of his liberty; that
order was issued for the object Of determin-
ing whether he was illegally detaned.i The
inquiry was legitimate one, and Mr.. Miller,
the claimant, has attempted to show that he
was fugitive. and that his detention was
legal. The first question arises on the facts
of the case. The claimant has attempted to
show that George, alias Wash, is his slave,
and introduced his son, Jacob Miller, who
stated that ever since he had known any thing,
this person has been his fathers slave, under
his entire control and management, and had
been treated as the other slaves of his house.
hold until some four years ago, with three O.
Tiers, he absconded from his service. Mr..
Kelly, the second witness, a near neighbor,
corroborates these statements; was an init
mate in the family always; saw the boy there
in the capacity of servant, and agreed as to
the time and circumstances of the flight.
James Kelly, who was intimate in the
family for twelve years, corroborates the
statements of his brother. Isaiah Yocum
also corroboratcs the evidence of the previous
witness as TO the entire management and
control Of Miller Of the labor and services of
the fugitive. Trader, the Deputy U. States
Marshal, states that in a conversation, the
boy acknowledged Miller to be his master,
that he regretted his leaving, that he had
been persuaded to do SO; these conlessions
have been corroborated by the former witness
Kelly and by Deputy Marshal Black. As to
the status of the defendant it would be diff
ficut to present any case where the claim to
service could be better sustained. 1t has been
SO particular, crcumstantial, so uncontradict-
ed and clear that it is my decided conviction
that amongst the large number of cases tried
before me- never saw case more complete
~ made out. No proof is needed to this
, SpuiI tuut hCIluShy 10 Siu'S fotoNS' \ az
Supreme Court of the United States has de-
cided that all and each of her Judges are to
recognise the laws of each State, and arc
presumed to know the laws to the extent o!
their jurisdiction, which is the whole Union.
In some Btutes the laws requhftT the re-
cognition of some statute law: in such cases
the Judges or Commissioners may need to re,
qure proof of the existence Of such statutory
enactments MT so before a Judge whose
authority is co-extensive with the Union
| Allusion was made to the argument used by
Senator Mason. He was sorry to hear such
position taken here. Mr. Mason was
arguing as to the Territories where slavery
did not exist that was the Southern argument
by which it was sought to introduce slavery
into the Territories; but tue principle is this
Slavery is local. was the means OF bringing
out this most important decision in the
Mississippi case; it was uniformly adopted il
the South until the agitation of the Terrific
rial question. Slavery, then, is the creature
of law We know it does exist. Usage con
stitutes law, besides which, contrary to wha
has been stated, law after law have beer
passed by the States confrmatory and regl
lating it. To say that laws recognizing
slavery do not exist would be shutting ou
eyes to all the enactmelts of several States
AS to the manner in which this case has beer
managed, am grutiied, as it has been named
that there has been such gentlemany bearing
ON both sides; there have been no abusV
epithets used-none were expected--th
case has been conducted so as to merit tn
applause of all sensible men. ! would re
mark that there has been offered no evidenc
on the part of the defense, simply the admis
sion of the claimant that the party came
had for few years been residing near Troy
where he was reputed free, and recognize
as freeman.
That is proper: it is the theory of our law
in Ohio and other free States, that all mel
in their borders, without regard to color, ar
free men-the law does not sanction tn
tread of slave on our soil; the presumption
of law, then, are only to be counteracted b.
the conclusive proof of claimants.
But it is insisted that the fugitive law
nconstitutional--tha Congress has not tn
power, but that it is vested in the seveFa
States. This argument has been often ad
vauced by gentlemen who have discussed thl
matter in certain way, and am not sur
but that it has been inserted into certai
platforms. Let me advert for moment t
Judicial authority. In the case of Springs VS.
Pennsylvania, with the Judges of the U. {
Supreme Court, there was no dissension
, opinion as to the power of Congress, and tn
restriction of State legislation in conflict wit
, Federal action. believe may say that tn
= Supreme Court in Massachusetts, and ever
, other State, has recognized the same powt
in Congress. At an early date, in one or tw
cases, perhaps in Massachusetts,, some doubt
were expressed; but no respectable Court
. since have doubted, particularly as to the la
: of 1898. This is pretty strong authority
regard to the power, overbearng all ind
vdual opinions, however weighty or nume
Gus, unless sufficiently numerous to chang
the law.
n The constitution was formed in 1857, aft
!. discussion of this subject by the people
= large, and in the convention OF the sever
e States. The act of 1913 was passed, short