Eastern times., 1855-10-18

Such is the provision alluded to; so it was
framed, and SO it stands in the existing consti-
tuition of the United States There would seem
to be no ambiguity in the language used. and
really there is none whatever; and yet inge-
nuity and fanaticism have not been wanting IN
attempts to explain away the force and mean
ing given to it, not only by the highest tribunal
Of the land, but by the trainers Of the provision
themselves.
The Fugitipe Slaue Lao of I793-S;gned By
George Washington.
The debates in the convention show that it
was no easy matter to devise plan for the Sc
curity of slave property in the south which,
while il should be effectual to the end propos-
ed should. at the same time. satisfy the de-
| mands Of social Justice. The difficulties were
| great aud grave were the deliberations, before
the plan which did prevail. came to be regarded
as the best that human wisdom could devise
The convention, however, succeeded in this as
it did in all other cases of difficulty, by the ex
ercise of forbearance, good sense, and an en-
lightened spirit of concession. And subse
quently, in 1898, many of those who had been
members of the convention gave, members
of congress, n practical illustration of their
derstanding of the constitutional provision by
the passage of an act for the rendition Of fugi
tive slaves, to which act Washington, as Presi-
dent of the United States, gave the sanction Of
his great name. Following this, and during
the period of an entire generation, there was
| no difference of opinion to the real meaning
! of this organic clause. Differences of opinion
regarding the prepriety of some of the provisions
of the lao of 1893, were entertained at an early
| day, but these differences all had reference to
| the lao and not to the constitutional require
ment. To our own time has been reserved the
disgrace of repudiating the organic provision
altogether, or of denying to congress the right
| to pass any law on the subject whatever the
one falling back upon the higher ia,0'' doc
trine of Senator Seward, the other contending
that the states alone are bound to provide for
the fulfiIlment of the constitutional behest.-
And, as if to render the absurdity palpable even
to the senses, those who assumed the last posi-
ton, did so after several of the states, and Mas
| sachusetts among the number had interfered
| to prevent the execution of the law of 1898, be-
cause that law imposed upon state officials in
part, the duty of carrying it into effect and
after, too, II had been once and again decided
by justices of the United States courts, and
other legal tribunals, that it was exclusively
the duty of the United States to provide,
through officers of its own creation, for the ex-
ecution of the constitutional requirement!
Modification ofthe La,o of l793-Assau7ts up
on The &c anendatory and supplementary"
Ld,o of 1S50-Hs efectiUeneSs-Jury trial
itddmissible.
From this statement it will readily be seen
that ii had, in consequence of the decisions of
courts, and the action of certain states, become
necessary for the protection of the south. to
modify the law of 1898. This had long been
demanded and often urged by the people of the
states in which the institution of slavery pre-
walls, but was not effected till 1850, when the
present law, " amendatory and supplementary"
to the act of 1878 went into operation. Unac-
countable as it may seem, the passage of this
act Can act no more effective or stringent than
was the original law, had that law been eSecu-
ted in accordance with the intention of its fra
mers) created intense excitement, and this in
the minds of mer who had passed their whole
lives under the old act without complaining of
| its oppressive provisions or denying its consti-
tutionality. Nor less unaccountable was it that
many in the north arrayed themselves against
its execution, who had on all occasions de-
nounoed, in the btterest terms of reproach, the
old nullifers of South Carolina
The law, notwithstanding the assaults upon
II, from the first, when it came before the
courts, was pronounced constitutional, and from
this opinion to the present hour, there has
hardly been dissenting authority of respecti-
bility among American jurists. None, indeed,
except men of fanatical temperaments, or poll
ticians of peculiar party predelictions-men
whose risles are their opinions, or the adopted
conclusions from itinerant anarchists-now con-
trovert its constitutional validity. Let me not
be misunderstood l am not writing in appro-
raj Of the necessity of this organic provision or
of the law made in pursuance thereof, l am
simply recording the fact that both do exist,
and that the law must have place on our stat
ute book, in some form, so long as the consti-
tuition contains the clause demanding it. Nor
| do mean to assert that the existing law, in all
its provisions, is the best and most perfect that
can be devised. 1 only mean to say that in ev-
i cry instance our courts, whose duty it is to de-
| eide upon the validity of all laws when prop
erly before them, have, as the necessity has
arisen. pronounced this law constitutional
/ Assuming, thcn that such is the fact, the
question arises, can any material changes m
the law be effected which shall, without i'm
pairing its efficacy, render it more acceptable
to the nom -slavehoiding states: think not.
Its effectiveness is probably the only serious
objection which its opponents now entertain to
| the law, though not the one they would pub
lically urge. Any changes, therefore, unaffect-
ing the act in this particular would, by them,
be regarded as immaterial. None, in fact, has
been suggested of any consequence except the
Intervention of a jury at the examination
| before the magistrate authorized to de-
termine the question of identity and to grant
the certificate of removal if that be established.
1t is no valid objection, it is readily admitted,
to this Intervention that it would, lowing to
the temper of the times) effectually defeat the
whole purpose of the law, if such intervention
we're conceded right and in accordance with
the principles of jurisprudence. But this does
not seem to be the fact. Tho trainers of the
fugitive slave clause seem to have contempla-
ted no such intervention. The clause stands
in the constitution in juxtaposition with the
clause for the rendition of fugitives from justice
and the general principles of law applicable to
the latter, with which lawyers from time i'm.
memorial have been familiar, are alike applica
BILE to the former. AS evidence of this, the Law
of 1893, passed by those, who of all men, were
most likely to know the course of action con.
templated. determines what thelegal proceed
ings shall be, all of which in substance are re-
produced in the act of 1850. That jury tria
was not only not contemplated but deemed in
admissible. was the opinion of Judge Story
very clearly set forth in his commentary on thi
clause of the constitution opinion which
many years after he had occasion to re-affirn
in the case of Prigg Us. the Commonwealth o
Pennsylvania. The same opinion has since
been rendered by Judge Grier. and more re
Gently still, and with singular clearness and ell
egance, by Commissioner Curtis. of Boston.
need not repeat their language.
TO one outside the legal profession, all bear
ings of this question may not be familiar; bu
] q. thaf 81 -.