New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-05-29

is anything to justify comparison with the
Fugitive Slave Act. That process is not. as
many may suppose, new Know Nothing
enactment. 1t was originally authorized a.
long ego as 1893, and was incorporated into
tie revised statutes Of 1895, in the Ash
chapter and 18th section of which it is TO
be found. The preceding section requires the
Overseers Of the Poor in every town to relieve,
support and employ all poor persons residing
"or found in their towns having no lawful set
Element within the State, and in case of their
decease to burg them decently, the expenses to
be recovered of their kindred if they have any
chargeaole by law for their support, or other
wise to be reimbursed BY the Commonwealth.
Then comes the provision for removal as fol-
lows:
SIC L. IPor eoHPt Of he al oversers Of y tosn.
any yuec Of he Peace ray y dT-c-si ~
EXECUTED ~ any cors5e any otar person taes,n ds
retse Of III STATE bv jsrd or ,ss,er 10 an. or Sal -
any Place beyond where he bcsuz II the IN, ~ disks
psre- and 4 De nav be Conveniently r.oyo bs e ca.
tc IGNORED he may BE- and 90 employed
IL the house OF correction Or worLassse q lie public zpa
Now we are TO observe in the frs! place
that the complaint can only be made by the
Overseers Of the Poor of the town which
is at the time supporting the pauper, which
Oyerseers act not for any private gain or
benefit to themselves, but on behalf of the
town whose officers they area very different
thing as it strikes us from a complaint made By
any private unofficial person who chooses 20 set
up claim from which private and special gain
is TO accrue to himself.
Next as to the facts TO be established. There
are three: First, that the person complained Of
is pauper; secondly, that he has 10 settlement
in the State; thirdly, that he came from a GER
tain other State or place beyond sea. With re-
spect TO the first there is no room for mistake,
10 question Of identity can arise. The pauper-
ism is established by the fact that at the time
of the complaint the person against whom 1t is
made is supported as q pauPer. rs to the
second fact thar the pauper has no settlement
in the State-if he has one ii is pretty certain
that the Overseers will find il out aud take
measures for removing him thither, because IN
that case not only the expense Of the removal
but OF the support of the pauper previous to re-
moTal will come out of the town in which he has
a settlement. The only point as to which there
seems any considerable likelihood Of mistake IS
as to the place whence the pauper came. The
law might be employed an instrument
by unprincpled Oyerseers Of the Poor to get
rid of burden, careless upon whom it might
fall or to what place the pauper is sent; but IN
such a case it is hardly likely that legal con-
straint would be resorted TO. The usual course
is to give the paupcr little money and to send
him off some fine Summer day to seek his for
tune where he can find it.
Another criticism made upon the act is the
wide discretion which it gives to the Justice;
but this discretion ii is to be observed, is quite
rs much, TO say the least of it, for the benefit of
the pauper as for the benefit of those seeking
to send him away. OF course this discretion
does not authorize the Justice to act unless be
is satisfied that all the legal requisites of the
ease are fulfilled. II is only " such paupers'
as the law describes over whom he can exercise
any jurisdiction, and IT is only TO places "where
" theS belong" that the Justice is authorized
10 cause them TO be removed. But suppose all
those points fully made out, still the Justice is
left to his discretion. The law imposes no duty
upon him that may conflict with his humane
feelings and his sense of right and proprety.
All that is required of him is to act the part of
a man of sense and justice. How different in
this respect frem the Fugitive Slave Act-the
usual excuse of those who act under il being
that the law compels them and that they can't
help executing the repugnant but imperative
duty which it imposes upon them. But IN
addition to all this, nobody prctends that the
action of the Justice in this case is final
or conclusive. 1t is open TO be reviewed,
and if wrong to be set right, on writs of GER
tiorari or on habeas corpus, which is all the de-
Tense that anybody has against uniounded arrest
or false imprisonment.
Such is this procedures to which we have
to say in conclusion that if the Boston papers
think it liable TO abuse, perhaps it may be- they
are justified in calling attention to it, and in
dwelling with emphasis on its defects; but to
compare il TO the Fugitive Slave Act is to give
room for the conclusion that they are exceed
ingly ignorant if not utterly careless as TO what
the Fugitive Slave Act really is, and as TO the ma
ture Of the objections against il, or perhaps in
cined to apologize for those defects BY pretend
ing in the face of the fact, that Massachusetts,
has set the example of similar enactment.
THE NEW MOVE " THE CRIMEA.
IL.