The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-08-23

Dseisisa u Judge MeLean sustaining hs i.s


Al the opening Of The court yesterday morning, Mr..
birney OF counsel for the alleged fugitive, made
gsaen, Of power against the constuonality OF the
act oil Congress under which This proceeding held.
When This was concluded, the court pronounced the
following decieion amid the breathless silence OF the
vast auditory that filled the ball
DECISION on JUDGE nLEAs.
Ia giving my decision in this case, it may not be i'm
proper 10 say word in regard TO The manner IN which
u has been brought before !, in the first instance,
ssued wit OF hateas corpus, on affidavit that the
dsfendant--as he may be caled--was Illegally deprived
OF his liberty. The object TO inquire into the legality
OF his imprisonment, An order was Afterwards issued TO
the deputy marshal OF the United States with the
object IN view II was 10 inquire whether McQueIIy was
legally detained. With view OF showing legal de-
Hn'lon, the claimant, Henry Miller, has attempted TO
show that The defendant was fugitive from labor in
Kentucky. The inquiry undoubtedly was legitimate
The defendant must be released If illegally detained and ii
il for the claimant TO show that his detention il legal
The question that arises may be on the facts OF the
case The defendant has attempted 10 show that Me-
Query was his slave in the State OF Kentucky His son,
Jacob Miller, III years OF age, was introduced 10 prove
the act This witness states that ever since he has
known anything this person has been the slave OF his
father, has lived under his control and management and
has been treated the other slaves or persons owing
labor and service TO his father; also, that about four
years ago M,Querry absconded with three Others who
also owed service TO his father. VIM. Kelly, the
second witness. corroboates the first witness. He was
near neighbor 10 Mr.. Miller, and knew that this
boy" was his servant; they intimately acquaiut-
and always saw this defendant acting IN the capacity
OF servant This witness also coIroborales the state
ment OF MleIs son as 10 the abscontng OF this boy
and states the time and circumstances OF his leaving.
James Kelly, brother OF the last witness, corobo-
rates the testimony previously given. He also was in,
umaely acquainted win MT Miners family ana had
known this boy" IL or IL years; he knew him the
servant of MIR. Miller.
The witness Yocum conoboraes the first three. He
had lived near the parties for many years, during
which this defendant employed, managed and con-
olled as The servant of the claimant. Mr. Trader, a
deputy United States MARSHAL states conversation had
with MeQuerry, who said that Miller was his master,
aud expressed regrets tina: he bad left his service
said he persuaded by "Stephen," who abconded at
the same time. Thus statement is corroberaed by Mr..
Black. 10 whom MGQueuy confessed that this his
master, and that he leIt him under the circumstances
stated by the other witnesses. Now, far the stot,
OF this individual is concerned, it would be difficult TO
present case which would clearly establish the
claim OF Henry Merihis is particular and circum-
stanal-so entirely uacontradcted il is impossible TO
resist the result of the examina,ionhe clearest and
most decided conviction that this person in the
dition OF servant in Kentucky have never, in any
that have inyestigated-cases where damages
claimed, which present similar points-known a claim
more clearly made out
1t has been urged that it has not been proven that
kentucky a slaveholdng State Judges of the Su-
Feme Court of the United States recognise the laws OF
all the States, as do the State courts the laws of each
county The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the
United States extends throughout the Union and into the
Territories It's Judges are presumed TO know the laws
of each State and the extent of State jurisdiction. do
not say that such would be the rule this examna.
ton before State judge commissioner Of the United
States. In many of The States special law has been
passed recognising the laws Of other States In
such cases nothing more than exhibition OF the statute
law would be necessary. But where trial like this is
had In State where such provision exists, the State
judge and perhaps the commissioner, might require legal
proof of the existence OF slavery in the State where the
claimant resided But this is not necessary before judge
o the court whose Jurisdiction with the
whole country Kentucky is known 10 be slave State
The declaration OF senator from Virginia is alluded
to in support of the argument that slavery does not exist
" w in he / i'm real 10 anrrv IN
hear this argument The distinguished senator was
speaking Of territories into which friends OF the
that Shareholders had the right TO take slaves where there
was no legal recognition OF the relation. Thus
error. The great principle is this Slavery Is local. sad
sNy Srist by the authority of kaU may remark that
l was the OF bringing out this decision which
made in the from Mississippi 1t had been claimed
that the Shareholder bad the right TO take his slaves into
the territories where not lesazed and where long
usage had not sanctioned the institution Usage const
iues law after sufficient lapse Of Time. But the Su
preme court has decided the claim 10 be without iounda
uon Slavery exists only by local law.
In the savehoding States the laws provide for tue
condition Of master and slave they limit the power OF
the former and protect the rights OF the latter To deny
the egalizalon OF the relation IN these States 10 shut
our eyes TO what s written, and TO the decisions OF their
courts | am gratihed that in the examination and ar
sumeni OF this case there has been uniformly gentle
manly bearing-so abusive epithets were used none
were eIpeceds This must draw the appreciation OF all
sensible persons There has been no evidence on the
part OF The defendant except the admissions By The claim
ants attorney, which were that McQuerry had lived
four years in the Stale Of Ohio, during which time be
had been recognised, treated and considered as free
man. This proper This IS the theory OF our laws
and constitution. Every man in Oha without regard 10
color, IL presumed 10 be free her laws do not
sanction the tread OF slave. This treatment OF Nc
Query in Ohio therefore, nothing more than the pre-
sumption OF the law which, in my Judgment is coun-
teracied by The conclusive prooio the claimant that he
escaped into The State from "seryce and labor due" in
Kentucky
II insisted that the Fugitive slave" laws Of 9s and Of
80 no, constitutional that Congress has power
such law that the power OF enforcing the constr
iuhona provision is with the States. Ibis argument
has been frequently advanced by gentlemen who have
discussed this great question, and am not but that
il has been announced IN some platforms" that have
been framed will refer TO the judicial authority that
has recognised The power OF Congress 10 laws pro-
vdng for the return OF ugvss from labor In the
OF Prgg the State OF Pennsylvania The judges Of the
Supreme Court decided without dissent that Congress
had the power 10 egsate this subject. Some OF the
Judges thought the State bad rgh, TO legisale the
that Congress had the power TO adopt the law OF 9s the
law OF so not then enacted. The supreme OF
every State in the Union before which the question has
been raised recognised the power in Congress At
early period IN the history OF chusetand pos
sibly in other States, though il has not attracted
my attenton--his doctrine may have been dou bted,
but IL has since been affirmed and OF respect
able standing now doubts II.
This strong authority in regard 10 The power OF Con-
gess to eRela,e upon The subject Authority certainly,
that should overbear individual opinion, unless the
Der OF individuals entertaining opposite opinion great
enough 10 change the organic law OF the land to such
change the efforts OF those who deny the power Of Con
gress 10 Iegisate the subject Of slavery within the
hi. and impfopsrly dlrectpd he cd