Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-05-17

provisions of the act have been pronounced
unconstitutional And if Washington erred
on some of the provisions ofthat law, hemay
also have erred on others. But neither Wash
mgton nor Judge Story, whom the Sentinel
also claims authority, ever gave sanction to
such principles as are contained in some OF
the principles of the present Fugitive ACT,
and no sane man can believe they ever would.
Indeed il is by no means certain that Judge
Story believed the more Objectionable prov-
sionS of the law of 1898 were constitutional.
In the Psigg case, to which reference Is so fire
quently made, the question of the constitu-
tiOnality of the law was not considered, the
only question at issue being solely in reference
to the act of Pennsylvania.
The above is an extract from an editorial
in the journal of the 10th inst, in reply to one
of our own on the Fugitive Slave Law and
Judge LoRING To be candid, we had hoped
to have drOpt the subject with our last arti-
Gle. Judge LoRING, contrary to our expec-
tations has not been removed, and we feel
compacent besides, the weather is warm,
and the topic not very interesting, we fear
to our readers But not to say something
would be discourteous to our intelligent and
gentlemanly neighbors, as well as to our friends
of the Madison Courier and Banner who have
assaulted us about the same piece.
In the first place, we cannot be sedueed by
the challenge of the Journal into any attempt
to defend the institution of slavery. We do
not intend to be drawn off into making any
such false issue. That would be as foolish as
it would have been for the Russians to have
abandoned the impregnable protection of
Cronstadt, and come out to fight Sir CHARLES
| NAPIER in the open sea- Our Cronstadt our
impregnable fortress, is the Constitution of the
United States. Securely shielded by that
We bid defiance to all pirates and disturbers of
the peace and order Of society.
| What most surprises US is the bold assertion
of our friends that, in the PRIGG Case, the
question of the eonstitGtonality of the law
was not considered.
"The constitutionalitv of the law was not
considered" This is really veiy marvellous
assertion. We are confident that the editors
of the Journal have forgotten the points of
the case of Priggs V. the Commonwealth Of
Pennsylvania. 10 PETERS p. $50, for we
have too much respect for them to suppose for
moment that they would have made the
above statement with that case before them.
If they will refer to it they will find that
Judge STORY who delivered the opinion of the
Court, after stating the uniformity of acqui-
escence in the validity of the law by the va
rious State Courts, and especially naming the
decisions in New York, Pennsylvania, and
Massachusetts,, 1--WE beg the Journal to bear
in mind the Massachusetts, decisiors) proceeds
rs follows:
'But we do not wish to rest our present
opinion upon the ground either of contempt
raneous exposition, or long acquiescence, or
/ even practical action; neither do we mean to
admit the question to be of doubtful nature,
and therefore as properly calling for the aid of
such considerations. On the contrary, our
| judgment would be the same, if the question
were entirely new, and the act of Congress
| were Of recent enactment. We hold the act TO
be clearly Constitutional IN all It's leading pro-
UisioglS, and indeed, with the exception of that
part, which confers authority upon state mag
istrates, to be free from reasonable doubt and
| difficulty upon the grounds already stated
| As TO the authority so conferred upon the
state magistrates, while difference of Opin-
| ion has existed, and may exist still on the
point in different states, whether state magis-
trates are bound TO act under it, none is enter
tanned by this Court, that state magistrates
NAV, if they choose, exercise that authoril V,
unless prohibited by state legislation"
In answer to the vague and unsatisfactory
testimony of Mr. WM. STORY, as quoted by
the Journal from the life of Judge STORY,
let us hear what Judge STORY himself says
in his Commentaries on the Constitution,
with view to the very objection that there
was no jury trial, and that the proceedings
were only Of summary and preliminary
character The following is his language
"This clause the one providing for the re-
capture of fugitive slaves was introduced
into the Constitution solely for the benefit oil
J the slaveholding States, to enable them Il
reclaim their fugitive slaves who should
have escaped into other States, where slave
nv was not tolerated. The want of such
|
as a grevious inconvenience by the slavehold-
, ing States, since, in many States, no aid
whatever would be allowed to the owners
and sometimes, indeed, they met with oper
resistance. 1t is oJUiOus that these provision,
for The arrest and renaoual of fugitivcS Of 6otl
classes contemplate summary ministerial pro
. ceedings and not the ordinary course af Judi
cial Investigations to ascertain 1chether The cam
plant be t0e founded or the claim Of O,c1ie, sl
be established beyond all legal controversy. In
cases of suspected crimes, the guilt or limo
cence of the party is to be made out at hi
trial, and not upon the preliminary inquiry
: whether he shall be delivered up All tina
would seem in such cases to be necessary is
that there should be prinpo facie evidence be
fore the executive authority to satisfy it
5 judgment that there is probable cause to be-
lieve the party guilty, such as upon an ordi
nary warrant would Justify his commitment
: for trial
"And in the cases of fugitive slaves, tser
Mould seem 10 be he same necessity of reguirin,
only lyima tacie proofs Of o,onerslip lOit1ou
putting the party to a formal assertion of hi
: rights By suit at the common la0. Congress
appear to have acted upon this opinion anC
accordingly, in the statute upon this subject
have authorized summary proceedings befor
a magistrate upon which he may grant
warrant for removal"
Thus Judge Story, when commenting on tn
law of 1898 anticipates and answers the very
class of objections which are wagei agains
e the law of 1850.
:, But the case of PRIGG is not the only cas-,
in tho decisions of the Supreme Court on thi
Z subject In the case. of JONES u. YAK ZAND1
e 5, Howard, p. 215, the constitutionality o
the law of 1898 was distinctly and emphatic
ally re-affirmed.
Listen to the Court
e This court has already, after much delibe
e ration, decided that the act of February 18th
: 1898, was not repugnant to the Constitution
: The reasons for their opinion are fully ex
4 planned by Justice Story in Prigg o. Pennsyl
Y vania, l6 Peters, GIL.
= In coming to that conclusion they were for
4 titled by the idea, that the constitution itsel
in the clause before cited, flung its shield, 70