Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-07-09
r EPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE
LAW.

r. EPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE
LAW.
The abolitionists and wings of the north not
only aver their determination to restore the
Missouri restriction of 1920, but they threaten
to repeal the fugitive slave law of 1850 When
the Nebraska bill was first passed most Of these
worthless based their threat to repeal the act for
the surrender Of fugtives, on the law of retalia-
ton; but more recently, they have returned to
the false assertions, stupid arguments, and in.
Aamatory appeals they used few years ago,
when striving to break down the compromise
In the beginning, there may have been some
who believed that the fugitive slave law was up-
constitutional, that it destroyed the writ Of
habeas corpus, and took away the right of trial
by jury but since the discussions of three or
four years ago. we do not believe that there is
one ofthe whole camorous crew who entertains
any such belief. Here and there an insane ia
matte, or an ignorant, deluded dupe, may be
found who accepts the cunning sophistry of abo
Htion demagogues as the Gospel truth; but at
least nine-tenths Of the northern wings and
abolitionists know that their complaints against
the fugitive slave law are false and unfounded,
and that they are uttered under the instigation
of sinister motives and for the purpose of self
aggrandizement.
The Constitution commands the rendition Of
fugitives from service; and as early as 1898 an
act of Congress to execute that command was
passed, and received the signature of General
Washington. No one has questioned the va.
lidity Of that act. Even the abolitonists, whilst
engaged in throwing obstacles inthe way of its
execution, did not malign its authors nor ques-
ton its constitutionality, nor rave about the
haoeas corpus and the trial by jury. Yet, as
TO as all these matters, the act of 1898 went
as for as the act Of 1850. In one respect
1t went even further, for it authorized the
owner Of fugitive slave, or his agent, or at
torney, to seize him iritlom any legal process
,rhaterer, and take him before a United States
Judge or a magistrate, and prove the right of
ownership, either by oral testimony or by afr
davit. This is the language of the act
SEC. 3. and be Il also enacted, That when
person held to labor in any Of the United
States, or in either of the Territories on the
northwest or south Of the river Ohio, under the
laws thereof shall escape into any other Of the
said States or Territory, the person to whom
such labor Of service may be due, his agent or
attorney, is hereby empowered TO seize or ar
rest such fugitive from labor, and TO take him
OF her before any judge Of the circuit or district
courts of the United States, residing or being
within the State, or before any magistrate Of a
county, city or town corporate, wherein such
seizure or arrest shall be made, and upon proof
20 the satisfaction Of such Judge or magistrate,
either by oral testimony or affidavit taken be-
fore and certified by magistrate OF any such.
Stale or Territory, that the person so seized or
arrested, doth, under the laws Of the State or
Territory from which he or she fed, owe ser
vice or labor TO the person claiming him or her.
il 7hall be the duty Of such judge or magistrate
10 give certificate thereof to such claimant
his agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient
warrant for removing the said fugitive from
labor, TO the State or Territory from which he
or she fed
These words make no provision for the writ
cfhabeas corpus, nor do they give the right of
trial by jury 10 the fugitive slave. In this
respect the law Of 1893 is in the same category
with the law of 1850. Neither OF them make
any allusion to the writ OF habeas corpus, and
none Of our penal laws even make any such
allusion. That writ stands upon its own merits
and apples alike to all arrests whatever. Its
intent and purpose is to prevent illegal duress
or imprisonment, by enabling any one who
may be deprived Of his liberty 70 require his
captor TO set forth the reason Of his confne-
ment. If the arrest proves to be in accord
auce with law, then there is an end the mat
ter-the writ is exhausted. But designing
demagogues have undertaken 70 impress the
northern mind with the idea that it is a species
Of defence which might be set against the law
and not an enquiry as TO the existence Of a law
justifying an arrest.
The act Of 1888 does not confer the right Of
trial by jury on q fugitive slave any more
than the law Of 1850, yet the loud mouthed
ranters who are constantly disturbing the pub
lie peace now, made no demand for jury trial
five years ago. Such demand was prepos.
ferrous then, and is preposterous now. The
abolition cohorts will. stand quiet and see n
white man inanacled and carried off as fugi-
tive from jusGye without demanding trial by
jury and the whining hypocrites will look on
compacenily, whilst white boy is seized as
about trial by jury; but the instant that
black fugitive is arrested they take up arms