Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1850-1854, 1854-06-23
Saturday Morning, June IA.
The Democrat on Judge Smith.

Inc Democrat on Judge smith.
The Democrat, of yesterday morning,
contains over two columns. in criticism
on Judge Smiths recent decision on the
Fugitive Law, which to us seems a very
singular one. The editor is a lGlryer. and
his criticism il put forth with the tacit
claim of legal knowledge, in addition to-
the common sense knowledge of an edi-
tor.
After enumerating the points of the
Decision,-ls that legislation on the flu
gitive clause of the Constitution belongs
to the States severally instead of to Cons
gress, --2nd, that no person can be depriv-.
ed of the right of triatby jury,-and 3rd,
that no person can be deprived Of liberty
without DIE process Of Tar, it says:
As to the first point, we think the pre-
symptoms that fugitive slave acts belong
to the states and not to congress to pass.
The strongest argument can be made
on that side, and yet on account of the
uncertainty # the language employed. it,
does and must ever remain in some doubt
where the power belongs. 1t seems to.
us that it must depend on the generall
principles ofinterpretationas to the whole.
instrument.
And adds that State-rights judge.
would interpret the Constitution differ
emily from Federalist and finally up
on this point thinks the Judge fails to
sustain his point as follows:
We doubt whether the fugitive act
should be set aside for the reason that
this point is not perfectly clear, and the
decision by our highest court has been
the other way.
1t will be seen from the first three lines
of the first quotation preceding that it
thinks the presumption favors the Judg-
e's decision, and the next paragraph adj
: mits that the strongest argument can be
made on that point" and that there is
doubt upon it. taking the best view for
r Slavery.
If Presumption favors the Decision,
and 1.-THE Best Argument sustains ii, need
we more? And if we do, does not the
Democrat hno,r, in its legal reading, that
: whenever there is doubt liberty mast
have the benefit of it2
Upon the second point it proceeds to
r say;
Whether the fugitive act takes away
/, the right of trial by jury from the (alleg-
cd) persons held to labor we do very
, seriously doubt. For every black man
in the slave states has the right to claim
his freedom from the courts, and t. lay
the question whether he is OF is not a
slave, before jury there.
The fugitive act indeed does not grant
to the refugee slave the right to try this
) question in the northern state where he
is found an claimed nor does it take
away his right, which he had before its
passage, to try this question in the south
crn state whittier he is carried. The We
, nue. is changed. The trial is local. He
is claimed under the laws, say Of Missis-
sipp. Then in the proprlety of the case.
Mississippi is the state where his freedom
is to be tried
All very fine ncighbor, but what say
YOU when citizen of WISCONSIN is claim
ed? If am claimed as fugitive slave
must | becompcIcd to go to Mobile to get
jury? Is this law2 Your legal reading
teaches YOU that trial by jury" means a
trial by twelve men of ones equals, en-
pannelled from ones own county, shire, or
vicinety. Must Wisconsin submit to the
trial Of the liberty Of its own citizens to
the courts of Alabama or Louisiana?
And this is pertinent, for the case at New
Albany. in Indiana, where a lrhHe wo-
man was forcihly taken under this act in
to Kentucky, is yet freshin our memories.
the case Of Freeman. of indianapolis a
free black man. who under this act was
prOred TO belong to rererend clergyman
Of Missouri. and who was barely rescued
at the last extremity, who was known to
be free man by all his ncighborS. who
actually hunted up the locality in Cana
da of the real fugitive, and so proved it
to the Court, is even yet fresher in our
memories. and the life Of the venerable.
the good, the saint Ike Isaac t. HoppER.
details numerous instances where free
born citizens Of Pennsylvania and New
York have been kidnapped into slavery
under this act. Have we no protection?
In the face Of this will our neighbor have
the hartlihood to pretend that the trial
by Jury nominally granted to the slave
IN the locality where he is claimed to be-
long, IS TIE TRIAL BY JURY of law, of the
Constitution, the great safeguard Of our
liberties? We say nOminally granted to
the slave, for who does not know that
the uneducated, oppressed, hunted, poor
black man is utterly unable to get access
to the courts our neighbor names?
But this article is already too long
We will examine the question farther an
other time
We will close by expressing the real
sorrow we feel at seeing an effort which
betrays all through it that the real con-
victions of the writer are with what he
is conlemning, but is forced by his read
ers, his party, the necessity of opposition
and all such causes combined, to raise
technical fog over a question of human
rights.-n.