The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-10-13
1862

volved in this inquiry. II there be an uncon-
stitutioual provision in an act, that does not
alec. any other part Of the act. But by no
means intimate that any part Of the act refer
red to is in conflict with the Constitution.
only ay that the objections made to it do not
belong 10 the case under consideration.
The act Of 1850, except by repugnant pro-
visions did not repeal the act Of 1898. The
objection that no jury is given does apply to
both acts. From my experience in trying nu
merous actions FIR damages against persons who
Distracted an arrest Of fugit.ves from labor, or
aided in their escape, | am authorized to say
that the rights Of the master would be safe be-
fore jury. | zecollect an instance where
strong Anti Slavery man, called an Abolition
it, wa' On the jury in case for damages, but
who being sworn to find as the evidence and
the law required agreed to a verdict for the
plaintiff He rightly determined that his own
opinions could not govern him in deciding
controversy between parties but that under
his oath be was bound by the law and the evil
dence uf the case
1t was in the power Of Congress to give a
jury in cases Ike the present, but the law con.
tains no such provision, and the question raised
IL, whether the act without it is constitutional
This question has been largely discussed in
Congress ia the public press and in conyen-
tons Of the people. l. is not here raised as
question Of expedency or policy but Of pow
r.. Ia that aspect only is it TO be considered.
The act Of 1893 has been in operation about
sixty years. During that whole time it has
been executed as occasion required, and it Is
not known tina. any court Judge, or other eff.
Ger has held the act, in this or in any other
respect unconstitutional This long course of
Al
forth the sympathies Of the people and the
astuteness Of lawyers, is no unsatisfactory evil
dcnce that the construction is correct
Under the Constitution and act of Congress,
the inquiry is not strictly whether the fugitive
DC slave OF freeman, but whether he owe
service to the claimant This would be the
precise question n the case of an apprentice
In such a case the inquiry would not be,
whether the master had treated the appren-
tice 50 badly as to entitle him to bis discharge
Such question would more properly arise un-
der the lndenturo OF apprenticeship, and the /
laws under which 1t was executed And if the /
apprentice be remanded to the service of his .
master 1t would in no respect affect his right |
to q discharge where he is held, for the cruel- |
u ~ his master or on any other ground.
Inc same principle applies to tugitves from |
labor 1t Is true in such cases evidence is heard
that he Is freeman. His freedom may be es-
tablIshed, by acts done or suffered by his mas
t'r not necessarily within the jurisdiction
where he IS held as q slave. Such an inquiry
may be made as it is required by the justice
OF the case. But on whatever ground the fugi. /
tive may be rcmanded, it cannot legally opc.
rate against his right to liberty That right, .
when presented TO a court in a slave State,
has generally been acted upon with fairness
and impartialty Exceptions to this, if there
be exc, ptOns, would seem to have arisen on
the claims Of heirs or creditors, which are gov
crnci by local laws, with which the people of
the other States are not presumed to be &C
quainted
If a fugitive from labor, after being liberated
by Judge or commissioners should yoluntari-
ly return to his master, Southern courts have
held that his original status would attach TO
him. he would be held as slave And, of |
course the decision Of the Judge or commits
sloner, having BEEN that he did not owe SER
wee to the claimant, cOuldnot operate as bar
TO the rights OF the master The claim to
freedom IT made, in the slave State, would be
unaffected by the preliminary inquiry and de-
clsion. That decision is, that the slave does,
or does not, owe service to the claimant It
does not finally establish the fact whether the
fugitive is freeman or slave. If the decis-
ION on such an inquiry as this should finally
Tx the seal of Slavery on the fugitive should
hesitate long notwithstanding the weight of
precedent, without the aid of jury, to pro-
nounce his late. But the inquiry is prelimina-
ry, and not final
1t IL true 1t may be said that the power of
the master may be so exercised as to defeat
trial for the freedom of the fugitive. This must
Tod lint tbn ha, LII, =:
supposed arises out Of the institution of Slave
ry, over which we have no control. Under such
circumstances, we cannot be held answerable.
It may be said that the seventh article in the
amended Constitution, which gives trial Nv
jury where the value in controversy shall ex
cecd twenty dolIars' does not apply to case
like this The provision is, "in suits at com
mon law This is not strictly proceeding at
common law The common law it opposed to
the principle OF Slavery. The proceeding is
under constitutional and statutory provisions
under the forms specially provided, and not &C
cordng to the course OF the common law
Ihls Is represented to be an er pdJte proceed.
mg. Ii does not bear this character Had it
been represented to me that the fugitive could
produce evidence conducting to prove that he
dId not owe service to the claimant time would
have been given to procure the evidence. The
only allegation as to what the counsel cxpcct
Ell to prove by absent witnesses was. that the
fugitive had resided in Indiana and Ohio Erur
years, and that he Was esteemed and consider
ed a ircemnn. This the counsel for tho claim
ant admitted: and ~ no further allegation Of
evidence was alleged to be in the power of the
party OF course there was no ground for n post.
ponemeut
The presumption Of freedom attaches TO eve.
ry resident Of Zee State, without regard TO
Color and on the same principle in a slave
STATE every coored man is presumed to be
slave But this presumption, in this case is
connterar'cd by the facts proved
It IS argued that the evidence is defective a.
the record showing the status of the fugitive
rs authorized 10y the act Of 1850, is not produ
eed such record is not necessary to establish
the right OF the claimant If it were produced,
the identity Of the fugitive would still be an
open question. On the question of identity,
anything which couduced to prove that the per-
son described in the judgment was not the one
before the Judge or commissioner, would be ad |
missille
am gratiied with the gontlemauly bearing
and courtesy with which this argument has
been conducted 1t was due to the occasion
and the circumstances. No other course was
expected.
Upon the whole no doubt can exist on the
evidence that tho fugitive owes service to the
claimant and under the law, am bound to
remand him to the custody Of his master, with
authority to take him to the State of Kentucky,
the place from whence he fled
Mr.. Ware, for the claimant
McSsrs. Joh6e and Birney for the fugitive
REWARD or RICHTEoUs PERsEvERANCE-A
brief paragraph by telegraph, in Thursdays
paper announced the gratifying fact that the
Protestant Episcopal Convention of the Diocese
OF New York in session in New York city, had
admitted the delegates from ST. Philips lcolor-
od) Church to seats by an overwhelming vote