New-York daily tribune., 1854-07-12

~ ~ mover 10 erslate a, all upon the sub
jeci s assuming supreme and Unlimited power over ,ne
whole matter. There s no middle grouna. va.e s'es
ment the proposition assumed us m"s' enee'aa rel
ufaiion. , :. -.
The law of 1893 wss in but little, if any more than
rynnzp NO the State authorities for the OF
,hs cor s,u,opsI duties deyoved upon them For mat
very reason il passed without scrutiny, anh or 'e o
obeyed without question IL was grdecany no.sS
more than the States Themselves carrying out tne constr
tuition al compact Not until IL began 20 be required 1'
the States should yield up all control over these suoec
and proeraon OF their sovereignty was denanied' ai
attention become aroused No Importance therefore can
uv be attached the fact tha; this act was passed by
an eerly Congress and signed by the rater oi Ms
country ard acquescel in by the states and people
II is remark able fact tha; the startling deviaions
from .iric constitional limits occurred IN the very carries
years of the Republic ~ IT must always be- But time,
dcuss.n and experience haveheTetoforc pr wed adequate
corr,ctiyes so may they prove Added 10 these,
state sovereignty eopardzed federal cncroachment ap-
pretended and consolidation meaeihs can haI1i! '" "
accomplish the desired ends
To nv mind tberefore il is apparen; that Congress has
no constitutional power essate on tins suDlect IL Is
equally apparent thai the several states can pass no avs
nor adopt any regulations by which the fugitive may be
discharged from service. AAsuch laws and regulations
mus, be declared void whenever they brought 10 the
of judicial scrutiny state or national. II elusIy
apparent that il is the duty OF the respective States to
make laws and regulations for the faithful observance OF
this compact They have generally done So and doubt
less ou have continued DO but for the decision o.
the United States Supreme Court in the case oi Prgg w.
e. mOnvoGlh u Penn. II Is still their duty so TO do
Again ii is my mind apparent that the provision "i
vice. con,empla,es Judicial determination OF the lawful
ness OF the dunn which may be made
Mr Butler Of South Carolina who reported the clause i9F
the first ime Aug. 90 i7s7 framed its conclusion "a fol-
lows: But shall be delivered up 10 the person JtSlLf
claiming their service labor" How the Jssse
of the claim 10 be ascertained Who 20 determine
it Fugtves 10 be discharged in consequence
of law or regulation of the States 10 which they may
have lied. Not discharged by whom The Federal Gov
erument No, but by the States, in consequence or by
virtue OF any law or regulation therein But shall be
delivered up BY whom Evidently by the same
power which had covenented not to discharge them.
Shall be delivered up by the States. not seized by the
Federal Government.
The clause as finally adopted reads bu, shall be de-
vered up claim of the party TO h0m such sercics
qJor DUE. Here il fact 10 be ascertaned before
the fugitive be legally delivered up viz that his
vice due TO the party who claims him. How
is the fact to be asceraned A claim set up 10 the
vice of person. He who makes the claim is denominated
by the Constitution party The claimant is party,
the person who ressts the claim another party Ii he
really the service according TO the laws Of the state
om which he is alleged 10 have escaped he must be de-
vered up If the claim is unfounded he cannot be deiv
cred up. The Constitution itself has made up the issue
and arranged the parties 10 it. Can any proposition be
palmer than that here is suspended legal right upon
issue OF fact which only be determined by the COnt
tuoi al judicial tribunals OF the country Ii bears
analogy TO the exiradition OF ugitves from justice. In
the latter case issue is presented by the COnstu;ion
judicial proceedings have already been commenced aud
this is but species of process bring the defendant into
Court No clam is 10 he determined lie IL TO be deliv
cred up from the fact that he il charged to he
moved TO the State demanding him for trial lie placed
in The custody and under the protection Of the law the
regular course of judicial proceedn ngs Bat the former
case there can be delivery until the claim is tried and
determined and then the fugitive Is delivered not into
the custody of the law but into the and control
of party who has established his claim; no, TO be-
moved another State tribunal for trial with the shell
of the law him, but 10 be reduced, without further
process trial. absolute subection TO be taken whith
the claimant may de-re. In the case, the
Proceedings are commenced and terminated where the
claim is made; in the other the suit is commenced where
the oense committed and the law sends out ts process
- A.. tha,o W,,fa fhat.-
being served, through all its mutations, h.
much under the protection OF the law he who
il, and in its eye both are equal
Here there is fact. an ISSUE 10 be JuGiciay deter
mined before a right be enforced What authority
shall determine ii : Clearly the authority Of the State
whose duty il is TO deliver up the fugitive when the fact is
determined Until the issue which the Constitution itself
is decided the person entitled 10 the protection
of The laws of the State. When the issue is determined
a. ans the fugitive then the constitutional ,ompac. arises
above the laws and regulations of the state and 10 The
former the latter mus. YIELD -
To my mind this very clear and simple. The
whole proceeding is clearly judicial one, Gnd will not
stop here TO demonstrate what from the preceding
msiks appears obvious. The law OF 1850 by providing
for trial of the constitutional issue between the parties
designated thereby by officers not recognized by any Con-
stiiu,ion State National unconstitutional and void
hes been already said, that, until the claim OF the
owner be nterposed the fugitive in this state il, 10 oil in
tents and purposes free man.
The inerpostlon OF the cani oy lega process, s me
commencement of a suit A suit is the prosecution OF
some claim, demand request. o Wheat, iO7.I
trial thereof mus; not only be had before judicial rbu
nal but whether proceedings be commenced by the fugi
tive resist the claim OF the claimant, or by the claimant
TO enforce establish il il would that either party
would be entitled jury 1t is answer To this posi-
ton TO say that neither the States the General Govern
ment have provided the for such mode OF trial
The constitutional right Of the party remains the same
The late organization of County Courts failed to pro-
vide a trial by Constitutional Jury, yet the Supreme
Court held that the parties were nevertheless entitled to
demand it. provision is not made for such trial. t
the duty of the proper authority 10 make H. Nor Is 1t any
answer to this position to say that the proceeding to
claim and repossess fugitive from service IS not suit
at common law. THIS question is already settled. IL
has been udiciay determined that the term common
law was used in the Constitution in contradlstincton
suits in Admiralty equity. Were u otherwise, Con-
gress need only change the law form OF pro-
cedure nufy The right OF trial by Jury in all cases-
See Story COH 64j, Ct seq Pet. 40.
Mr.. Justice Story Gays:
just amendment we'll consnedto embrace
all 'I's hch are b9 OF eqy o adnaa'y wAsssi
! rights"
We have already seen that the legal right OF the claim
must be settled before fugitive from labor can DO delv
cred up. We have already that su is held to De
the prosecution Of claim, demand or request The
conclusion be irresistible therefore, that the pro-
ecurion o the claim fugitive from labor, resistance
such claim by legal proceedings on the part Of the iug
tive Is suit, not in equity admiralty and hence at
common law, within the purview of the Constitution Of
do pretend 10 say that such approaching
technically suit common law; nor il proceeding by
foreign attachment and other proceedings when are
held be embraced by the jury provision OF the Cons
tuition. Authorities might De- multiplied ON this subject,
were j: necessary.
Again. is said that the Constitution evidently contem-
plates summary mode OF proceeding in the case OF fu-
gitive from labor Where is the evidence OF i, Nothing
Of the kind is found in the history of the proyon nor m
rs pathway 10 the Constitution Nothing OF the kind
apparent from the language used for distinctly imports
trial oi the claim and determination Of the fact that Ia
Dor ervice du. TO the claimant before delivery
be made When the evidence of such ion Is fur
nished there will be time enough 10 rampls down a the