New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-07-24

! ;rJ,usnt 81 the Court in which Pr-r convicted
The principal question discussed BY tie justices OIL ne
Court who gave opinions the power OF congress %
Ieci.lae upon the subject OF the reclamation OF tug'es
from labor and they all Of opinion that C'nsess
/ has the power. majority holding ha: the power was
exclusive that the State could not pass laws even 10
ao Of TIE legislation Of Congress L. The course oil ms
discussion soihng said in relation - the power. OF
Coumsoners, for those officers did not exist at the tune
vi IL act Of Congress passed of the night OF
the alleged fugitive 20 trial by Jury, 20 decide the qus-
zion Of upon which his surrender depends In the
case Of lones vs. Van Zand 9Th How. K. 25 the act OF
1923 again before tire Court for It's consideration
ard in the course Of the opinion given in that The
Court says This Cour, has already after much dehoe-
ration. decided that the act Of Feb -, l79 was not
.reUuensnt 10 the Constitution The reasons for their
or1on fully explained by Justice story il Prgg vs.
penn 18th Peters I'll" In the case Of Moore Hi
rois l4b How K. - the Court state what was decided
In n ease of Prg Penny vana and among the qles-
tcns laid 10 be decided in that was this; nat the
Government IL clothed with appropriate authority and
furctons 70 enforce the delivery of fugitive slaves on
claim Of the ard has properly exercised II in the
set OF Congress Of 18th February 1898. These ar all
the which We have been able TO find where the act OF
1898 has before the Supreme Court of the United
States for and in ofthemis the question of the
power Of msloner 10 give the certificate 10 the clam
sut which authorizes the removal Of the fugitive discussed
or decided.
These cases equally silent upon the question most
mportan; oDe raised in this 10 the right of per-
son claimed as fugitive from labor to have the facts
which must be proved before he be surrendered 70
the claim tried and decided by Jury Il Is true that
the act 1923 provides for the surrender OF the person
claimed gtive without such trial and decision and
it sad in subsistence by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the cases of Jones Van Zand and Moore
ros that tie Court did decide the of Prigg
Penna that the of Feb - 1913, constitutional
but upon looking a; that find that the question OF
trial by jury determine the facts OF the case was not
raised by tie record and was not discussed by the Court
in giving It's opinion. We think would be most unjust
10 hat Court TO hold that il has decided questions which
It's JUDI have not even discussed, and when nave mol
been before il for adjudication -,
We are Of opinion therefore that whatever may be the
duty this Court in relation 70 the question OF the power
- =. b.si the of
tve m labor the persons 10 whom their labor is due,
we are liberty consider the question OF the right
Of Ierson claimed fugitive to trial by jury before
he can be surrendered delivered up 10 the claimant
rs sready settled by the Courts which has the power
finally 10 decide all questions growing OUT OF an alleged
violation q the Constitution Of the United states by an
act Of Congress. must consider the question as an open
/, becomes therefore on. duty to decide whether
much of the set Of Congress of September l. $50 a.
provides that certain officers called commissioners, shall
decide tie questions of fact which must be proved before
tie surrender OF the alleged fugitive can take place,
valid ami obligatory. We think that we are also called
upon 10 decide whether the proceedings provided for IN the
or esat hng udiciay the fact of the escape OF the
alleged fugitive and the fact that he service labor,
are IN conformity with the Constitution Of the United
States. These questions are most grave and important
we would thar we could avoid them but they forced
upon w. and not at liberty 20 refuse TO consider
them.
in question refers the Commission for decision the
Que siions fact which to be estb shed by ey1ence
before the alleged fugitive can be delivered up - the
claim to the Constitution oi the |. -,
and void for two reasonslst because Il at
Temps confer upon those officers judicial powers ana
ID because il denial Of tie right OF the alleged tu-
tive have those questions tired and decided by Jury,
which think il given him by the Constitution OF the
United States. We have referred 70 the case of Martin
~ Unnfrns essees II Wheaton D. 3Ojl and to Art. D.
See. l. If the Constitution Of the Uuied states TO show
that Congress cannot vts any Judicial power under the
Constitution except in Courts We are aware that Con
gres has established Courts in the various territories and
has provided for the appointment OF Judges with dier
ept of Office from that fixed by tile Constitutions
but the power to appoint these Judges supposed TO be
derived from Art. Sec. ,, OF the Constitution when
provides that Congress shall have power % dispose Of
and make all Heecful rules and regulations respecting
the territory or other property OF the United States
But however this may be, We are not aware thar the
authority any portion of the Judicial power IN any
bu1as created by itself except those mentioned III
ton o ant. Of the Constitution claimed tor Congress
BY sny enc, in the single instance of Judicial officers
for The Territories belonging the United States, and for
the District of Columbia We think that the duties per-
ION ed by The commissioners, under the act IN question:
are judicial in their character clearly those per
toned b. Judge i'll the ordinary administration OF JUS
tee He is obliged to decide upon the questions presented
udcialy and give certificate To the person claiming
II alleged fugitive which authorizes his transportation
10 the State wh,ce he is alleged have escaped
or Withhold H. ne shall think proper, in view of the
dence submitted for his consideration IL is true that the
act by providing that the record made in the State from
whence the alleged fugitive may have escaped shall be
conclusive evidence Of the escape and OF the fact thar
the person claimed service or labor to the claimant
materially lessons the labor of the Commissioner but this
docs Lot alter the nature of the which he performs
il must be regarded judicial determination of the
matter submitted TO him. We are therefore, of opinion,
that the under considerations by attempting to vest
judicial power officer created by Congress and unknown
tie Constitution Tepuenant 10 thAt instrument ana
for that reason void.
And we think it equally clear that the Constitution is
violated by Withholding from the person claimed, the
right to trial by jury, before he can be delivered up to
the claimant.
The fifth article of amendments to the Constitution Of
the United States provides among other things, that no
person 81 all be deprived of lite, liberty, or property,
without due process Of law Chancellor Kent, IN his
commentaries IL Kent 81 says, it may be received
aseeyident proposition, universally understood and
acknOw LEGGED throughout this country that no person
can be- taken imprisoned, or dlssezed OF his free
hold Liberties, estate, or exled, or condemned or
deprived of ie liberty, property, unless by the law
of the land or the judgment VI his peers.
"1he words (sr ~ ne t1Ed as used III magma CAartG
in reference 10 this subject are understood to mean due
process of law; that Is by Indictment presennent OF
good and ul men, and this says Lord Coke Is the true
and exposition of these words We are aware that
il has been said that slaves not persons IN the sense IN
which iha; Is used in the amendment TO the COnsu
ton above referred 10. But this, admitting to be true,
dOs affect the question under consideration a. per
sons who free liable 10 be arrested and deprived OF
their Liberty by virtue of this act without having had
trial by Jury Of their peers. We DO propose 10 DIS
ouss the question whether slave escaping from the State
where be is held 10 service labor into state where
slavery does not exist thereby becomes free by virtue OF
the local law subject only 10 be- delivered up, 10 be
turned again servude question not necessarily
nvoyed IN the consideration OF the subject before But
propose examine the operation Oi the act upon Tree
citizen OF free State. aud Ia show that by such per-
son may be deprived Of his liberty without due process
of law Il will he observed that the claimant 90
before any OF record, any judge thereof
ton and 6ke satisfactory proof 10 such Court or Judge
In vacation of the escape and that the person escaping
owes service or labor 10 such party.
IL then becomes the duty Of the Court TO cause record
10 be made Of the matters proved and also description
Of the person escaping and such record being exhibited to
judge, commissioner, or other ohcer authorized oy
laf.a ha