Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1854-06-09

hcleHcy. III appeared originally III Putnam MhCh-
zine, and is re-pubsled in Il handsome volume by
Tichnor. Mr. Woolhouse has it.
THE BOSTON SLAVE CASE.
DECISION OF COMMISSIONER LORING.
The following is Il verbatim report Of Commissioners
IInrng's decision:
THE DECISION.
The issue between the parties arises underline Uni
ted States Statute Of 1850 and for The respondent II Is
urged that the Htauois unconstitutional Whenever
this objection nude, il becomes necessary to rccur 10
tho purpose of the statute. II purpnrts 10 carry into
execution tho provision of the Constitution, which
provides for the cxrton Of pcrsnns held Ia service
or labor i'll one state and escaping INTO another II is
applicable, and ii liz applied alike 10 bond and trcc
n the apprentice and the slave, and in reference Ia
both, in purpose, provisions and processes ARE the
same.
The arrest of the fugitive s ministerial and no.
judicial act and the u! the net In ne" altered hy
the means elnplnved for its accomplishment. W len
an officer arrests fugitive from justice or party ac-
cused the officer must determine the Identity and use
his discretion and information for tho piirpo"e w heh
ali arrest il made under this statute, the means ui dc-
termiuing the identity are prescribed hy lhe statntc
but whom the means nro used and the act 'nno, il ir
still ministerial The statute only substitutes
the il provides or the discretion ni an arrcsns
officer md thus gives Ia tho fugitive from service
much better protection than fugitive from l'sc"cal
claim under amy law.
Ii extradition il the only purpose of the statute
aud the determination of the identity ia the only pur-
pose OF these proceedings under H. 1t seems t" me
that the objection ui uiuncunsuonaly la the statute,
because it does furnish jury trial t" the fugitive
s answered.
There is no provision, in the Constitution requiring
the ieHttY vi the person To- be arrested should e de-
tormned by Il jury. IL has never beon claimed for
apprentices fugitivcs from uaticc aud If il docs
not belong To them, il does not belong 10 the rSpon-
dent. And if extraditiou is ministerial act t" sub
stitute i'll its performances Tor the discretion o an mr.
resting officer, the discretion Of Commissioner III
structcd by testimony under oath, seems scarcely to
reach to grant of Judicial power. within the mean
ing of the United States CONSTITUTIONS And 1t il GER
tain that if the power given 10 and used by the Com
mssrncrs of tho United Siutc. Courts under the stu
tuto is uncuilstitutiolia-hcn the power given
to and used 10y magistrates OF counties, cities AMI
towns by the net of lI!8.
These all were Commissioners of the United Stnrs
the powers they used under the statute. not tie
rived from their respective States but from the sa-
tute of the United States. They We're commissioned
by that class instead of Individually and by name
and in this respect The ony difference that can
between the acts Of 1893 and 1851, that the latter
reduced the number of appointccs and confined the
appointment to those who by their professional tru
ding should be competent to the performance of their
duties, and who bring to them the certificates Of the
highest Judicial tribunals Of the land.
II il said the statute in unconstitutional because it
gives to the record of tho Court Of Virginia un elect
beyond It's constitutional effect. The first section of
the fourth article of the Constitution Is directory OH
~ on the State power and 10 the State Courts, and
does not seek Ia limit the control OF Congress over
the tribunals Of the United States or the proceedings
therein. Then in TINT article the terms ''rccors and
judicial procc,lin.s refer 10 such intrrpnrIr1 and
Of necessity have II" application t" proceedings
avowc cTp1ric then tho first section incliltl'h 'Is re-
cord il expressly declares to "rccors nnd ludriai
proceedings" that Congress shall prescribe 'Wr CHc"
hcrroE and this express power would seem 10 bcpre-
cisov the power that Congress has uscd III the statute
| uf 1850.
Other constitutional objections have been used here
which have been adiudged and re-adiudgcd by the
| Courts Of tho United States, and Of many OF the
States, and the decision" OF these tribunals apsoved
me from considering tho sllne question further than
To apply To them the determination Of the Supreme
Court Of this State in SinlIns case, Gushing 'iOJ
page that they sure settled by coursc oi lcgul do
| cisions which are bound 10 respect and which
wc regard as binding and conclusive on the Court.
But special objection has been raised tn the record
that il descrbea the escape nS from the State oi r-
ginia and onits to describe tas into another STATE III
the words and substance OF the Constitution But III
this record follows the 10th section of the Statute of
1885, aud the context Of the section confines It's ac-
tion cases of escape from Statc, &c, into ano-
ther, and is therefore in practical action and extent
| strictly confornablo to the Constitution.
The statute has been decided tn he constitutional
| by tho unanimous opinion of tho Judges Of the Su-
prone Court of Massachusetts in the fullest argument
and the maturest deberation, and to be the law OF
Massachusetts well ns. and because it il constifu-
tona law of the United States and the wise words OF
may well be repeated now, and remembered always.
| The Chief Justice says
| aSlayery was not cronted, established perpcua-
ted by the Constitution: 1t existed hetorc; II would
have existed if the Constitution hnd not been made.
The trainers OF the Constitution could not abrogae
slavery, or the rights cluined under il. They took 1t
they found it, and regulated II to limited extent.
The Constitution. therefore, ia not rcapoilslhlc tor inc
origin or continuance OF Slavcry-ihc provision 1t
contains was the best adjustment which could be
inado Of conflicting rights und claims, n'l was abso-
utely necessary 10 effect what may now be consider,
ed the general pacicntion by which harmony and
| peace should take the place Of violence anu war
These were the circumstances, and this the spirit III
which the constitution WA made. Tho regulation Ol
slavery far to prohibit States by law from iar-
boring fugitive slaves al essential element IN lts
fornation und tio Union intended tn be established
by it was essentially nccess"ry to the peace hapPi
ness and highest prosperity of all the States In tins
| spirit and with these views steadily i'll prospect, 1t
seems 10 be the dnty of a Judges and magistrates i
cNpuund apply these provisions in the constitution
and uyys of the United Statcs and in this spirit 1t be-
hoOves all persons bound to obey the laws OF the Unl-
ted States TO consider md rcSnrd them 1t Is rod
the statute if constitutional is wicked AMI cruel.-
Tie like charges brought agniia the act oil T;
and &. j. Parker of Massachusetts,, made the answer
which c. j. Shaw cites and approves, viz "Whethcr
the statute is harsh not 1t Is not or LID la tie
| tcrinine."
Ii il said that the statute cruel and wicked that
! il should not lo executed by goud men. Then into
what Innd sbnl s administration full and i'll liS adj
mnstration what is to be the protection "i tn" ui"r,
tunnte men who uro brought within its operation
Will thoso who Gull tho satutc mcrccss commit To II
| morciless judgc2
| If tho statute involves that right, which for lis
makes life sweet, and the want Of which makes lir n
misfortune, shall lis administration be confined t"
those who are reckless of that right i'll others, or ig
nurant or careless of the for liz cgal de-
fence or dishonest in its use! If nny men wish thIs,
thov are more cruel and wicked than tho stntutc for
they would strip from the fugitive the best security,
and every allev the saiutc gives HIM.
But the statute il cnnstltutona It rcInulns for Inc
now To apply il to the facts of the case.
Tho facts 10 be- proved by the claimant are three:
!. That Anthony Burns owed him service i'll Viz
ginia.
2. That Anthony Burns escaped from that service
These facts bo has proved by the record which the
statute section 10, declares shall be held and taken
TO be full and conciustrs evidence of the fact of Ca
cape, and that the service or labor OF the person Ga
cupng is due to the party in such record mentioned
Thus theso two facts removed entirely and alb
soutely from my jurisdiction, and am entirely and
absolutely precluded from applying evidence to them
IT, therefore, there is in the evidence capable of
such application, cannot make it,
The 81 fnct is the identity OF the party before me,
with the Anthony Burns mentioned in the record.
The identity is tho only question have rightto
consider To this, and this nloic, am to apply tho
evidence, and the question whether the respondent
in Virginia at certain tinc IS material only us
it il evidence on the point Of identity. So the parties
have used it, and thu testimony ot the complainant
heins that the Anthony Burns of tho rcrorl in
Virginia OH tho 10Th Of March last the evidence ofo
respondent Las boen offered to show that he was in
Massachusetts, on or about tho st of March iast, and
thereafter till now.
The testimony ofihc claimant liz from single wit
mass, and he, standing in circumstances which would
necessarily bias the fairest mind-nnd other inpntn
ton than this HIS not been Offered agninst him, and
from anything that hw appeared before me, cannot
be-his means of knowledge are personal, direct, and
Qualify him to testify confidently, and he has done
The testimony on the part Of the respondent is from
many witnesses whose Integrity is admitted, and to
WHOM no imputation of bias can be attuched by tho
evidence in the case, and whose means of knowledge
are personal and direct, but in my opinion less full