Washington sentinel., 1854-06-07

argument hnd reason can prevail (CheersJ
The SupREMAcYoP LAw.-The Boston Post
ofSd inst has the following article.
The decision of Commissioner Loring, on the
law aud the facts in the fugitive slave case, re-
manded Burns to his claimant. There is not
in the minds of the community SO much as
doubt that underline laws.of Virginia, Anthony
Burns owed Col. Suttle service; that he escaped
from that service, and that according to the
Constitution, to the bargain Massachusetts made
with her sister states and to solemn, obliga
ton, ii becomes aduty to deliver him up. This
was accordingly done, Officers according to
their oaths, executed the laws. 31
The manner in which they discharged their
duties, in the present excited state of the com
munity, must command the appreciation Of
every good citizen. The arrangements were
so complete that no serious attempt at rescue
was made, and no blood was shed. The escort
was several times crowded upon, and insults
were offered TO the police and military by the
excited mob; but thanks to the good Judgment
of the officers, order trinmphed and the law
was maintained. The strong demonstration of
force was the truly humane course. iilf6 ps,A
While great credit is due to the civil authori-
ties for their arduous labors and successful pre-
seryation Of the peace, too much praise cannot
be awarded to the citizen soldiery Of Boston for
their great service. AT the call Of the law they
promptly and patriotically rallied, in full ranks,
to the support of the law; and their bearing
was as cool and forbearing as it was gallantand
military. It was to this organization that this
city owed yesterday its preservation from an.
archy. Nor is this the first time the commu-
nifty has received such service at its hands !;
and it is passing. strange that there are those
who question its utility or who hesitate to
award to it the praise that is its gust due.
When the events of the week past are consid-
ered-when the unparalleled efforts to excite
riot and treason, are MISUNDERSTANDING would
have been the state of Boston yesterday, when
the excited concourse crowded its streets, but
for the action of the citizen soldiery. Their
determined appearance was demonstration
that an attempt to rescue would have been inn
possible to have succeeded and this preserved
the public peace.
Massachusetts, yesterday, presented mem
orable occasion of the manner in which she
stands ready to fulfil her obligations TO the
Constitution and the Union. That the laws
should have been executed, not only without
bloodshed but without serious disturbance, re-
fleets credit, not only on the officers, but on
law.abiding citizens. rsa. si4ssta,
The RENDITION OF BURNs.-The decision in
this case was. delivered yesterday morning, by
Commissioner Loring. An intense excitement
prevailed in and about the court house, for con
siderable time previous to the meeting of the
court. At about quarter before O'Clock Burns
was brought into court attended by guard Of
men, and at o'clock the commissioner took
his seat Order was Immediately secured, and
Mr.. Loring read his decision, as follows:
DECISION OF CosrMIssloNER LoR1Nc-The issue
between the parties arises under the United States
statute of 1850 and for the respondent il is urged
that the statute Is unconstitutional. Whenever
this objection is made II becomes necessary 10 re-
cur TO The purpose Of the statute. Il purports 10
carry into execution the provisions of lhe Consti-
tuition which provides for the extradition of per-
sons held 10 service or labor in one State and es-
Gaping into another. II is applicable, and il is a-
plled alike TO bond and free-to the apprentice
and the slave, and in reference to both the purpose
provisions and processes are the same.
The arrest of the fugitive is ministerial, and
not ajudcialac and the nature of the act is not
altered by the means employed for its accomplish
ment. Whea an officer arrests "A fugitive from
justice or party accused, the officer must deter
mine the identty, and use his discretion and in
formationI for the purpose When an arrest is
made under this statute, the means of determin-
ing the Identity are prescribed by the statute, but
when the means used and the act done III is
still ministerial act. The statute only substi-
stntcs the means il provides for the discretion of.
arresiing officer and thus gives TO the fugitive
from service much better protection than fugi-
tive from Justice can claim under any law. gil 3,,
Ii exlradtion is the only purpose Of the statute
and The determination of the identity is the only
purpose OF these proceedings under il, il seems
10 me that the objection of unconstitutionality.
TO the statute becauselit does not furnish jury
trial toIhe fugitive is answered.
There is no provision in the Constitution re-
curing the identity of the person TO be arrested
should be determined by a jury. Il has never
been claimed for apprentices nor fugitives from
Justice and if it does not beongt them Il does moi
belong 10 the respondent. And if exiraditiontis
a ministerial act, then TO substitute in it's per-
formance, for the direction OF an arrestng officer
the discretion of a commissioners Instructed BY
Testimony under oath, seems scarcely 10 reach 10
grant of Judicial power, within The meaning iof
the United States Constitutions And il il certain
that If the power gvento and used by the conf
missioners OF the United States courts under the
statute is unconstitutional, then so was the power
given 10 and used by magistrates Of countless
cities, and towns by the act of 1793 gfa assitt
Z These all were commissioners OF the United
States The powers they used under the statute
were,no derived from the laws of their respec-t
tive States, but from the statute of the United
States They were commissioned by that and
that alone. The were commissioned by the class
instead of individually and by name and i'm this
the acts of 1913 and 1850, is thar the latter re
duced the number Of of'appoinfees and confined the
appointment 10 those who by their professional
training should be competent TO the performance
OF their duties, and who bring 10 them the certi6-
Gates of the highest Judicial tribunals ofihe land
1t is said the statute is unconstitutional because
il gives to the record Of the court of Virginia an
effect beyond its constitutional effect The first
section OF the fourth article of the Constitution is
directory only on the state State power as to the
State courts, and does not seek to limit the con
troll of Congress over the tribunals Of the United
States or the proceedings therein. Then in that
article the term 'recordsand judicial proceedings'
refer 10 such incorporates and Of necessity can
have no application 10 proceedings avowet er-
parte. Then il the first section includes this re
cord, it expressly declares us TO "records and
judicial proceedings that Congress shall prescribe
Z his effect herScf," and this express power would
seem TO be precisely the power that Congress has
used in the statute of 1850. air hDs ID aillg i
Other constitutional objections have been urged
here which have been adjudged and re-adiudTed
by the courts of the United States, and of many Of
the States, and the decisions or these tribunal,