Washington sentinel., 1856-05-13

Il
| State magistrates of the power Of acting under
the law. What was the consequence? Let us
take the State of Pennsylvania for an example
There were but three individuals left in the
whole State who could judcially execute the
| provisions of the Act of l793-the Circuit
Judge and the two District Judges Two OF
these Judges reside in Philadelphia, and one
of them at Pttsburg, distance Of more than
three hundred miles apart. 1t is manifest
therefore, that the law in many, indeed IN mesl
cases could not have been executed for want
of officers near at hand. 1t thus became abso
lutely necessary for Congress to provide United
States officers to take the place of the State
magistrates who had been superseded. With.
out this, constitutional right could have ex.
listed with no adequate means of enforcing it.
The fugitive slave bill was passed chiefly to
remedy this defect and to substitute such Off
GERS instead of the State magistrates, whose
powers had been nulliGed under the decision
Of the Supreme Court.
1t is worthy of remark, that several of our
Northern Legislatures, availing themselves Of
the decision of the Supreme Court, and under
the deep excitement produced by the agitation
of the Wilmot Proviso, passed laws imposing
obstacles to the execution of the provisions of
the Constitution for the restoration Of fugitive
slaves. | am sorry very sorry, to state that
Pennsylvania is among this number. BY our
act of Sd March, l847, even the use of our
public jais is denied for the safe custody Of the
fugitive; and the jailer who shall offend against
this provision is deprived of his Office and is
punishable with heavy fine and disqualif-
cation ever again to hold similar office!
The two principal objections urged against
the fugitive slave law are, that it will promote
kidnapping; and that it does not provide trial
by jury for the fugitive in the State to which
he has escaped.
The very same reasons may be urged, with
equal force, against the Act of 1898; and yet
it existed for more than half a century without
encountering any such objections.
In regard to kidnapping;-the fears Of the
agitators are altogether groundless. The law
requires that the fugitive shall be taken before
the Judge or commissioner. The master must
there prove, to the satisfaction of the magis-
trate the identity of the fugitive, that he is the
masters property, and has escaped from his
service. Now, ask, would kidnapper ever
undertake such task? Would he suborn
witnesses to commit perjury and expose him
self to detection before the Judge or commits
sioner, and in presence of the argus eyes Of
-slaveholding community, whose feelings
will always be in favor of the slave? No,
never. The kidnapper sezes his victim in the
silence Of the night, or in remote and obscure
place, and hurries him away. He does not ex-
pose himself to the public gaze. He will never
bring the unfortunate object of his rapacity
before commissioner or q Judge Indeed, i
have no recollection of having heard or read of
case, in which a free man was kidnapped
under the forms of law, during the v hole period
of more than half a century, since the act Of
1898 was passed.
But it is objected 10 the law that the fugitive
is not allowed trial by jury in the State to
which he has escaped. So it has always been
under the act of 1898, and so it is under the
present law. A fugitive from labor is placed
upon the very same footing, under the Constitu-
ton, with fugitive from justice. Does a man
charged with the commission of crime in
Maryland fly into Pennsylvania, he is delivered
up, upon proper evidence, to the authorities of
the State from which he fed, there to stand his
trial He has no right to demand trial by
jury in Pennsylvania. Nay more; under our
extradition treaties with foreign powers, does
man charged with crime committed in Eng.
land or France fly TO the United States, he is
delivered up to the authorities Of the country
from which he fled, without a trial by jury in
this country. Precisely the same is the case
in regard to fugitive from labor. Upon salts
factory proof, he is delivered up without a trial
by jury. In the Constitution he is placed upon
the very same footing with fugitives from JUS.
tice from other States; and by treaty. he is placed
upon the very same footing with fugitives from
justice from foreign countries. Surely the fugi-
tive slave is not entitled to superior privileges
over the free white man. When he returns to
the State from which he has escaped, he is
there entitled to trial by jury, for the purpose
of deciding whether he is a freeman. l believe
every slave State has made provision by law
for such trial without expense, upon the petit
tion of the slave; and we have heard il an.
nounced from the highest authority in the
Senate OF the United States, that such trials are
always conducted in mercy, and with rigid
regard to the rights of the slave.
Why should an act Of Congress cast such a
reflection upon the judicial tribunals of a sister
State as TO say they shall not be trusted with
the trial OF the question whether an individual
is entitled to his freedom under the laws Of the
State from which he has fed?
Bot to allow the fugitive slave a trial by Jury
in the State where he is found, would, in many
instances, completely nullify the provisions Of
the Constitution. There are many, / fear very
many, in the Northern States who place their
conscience above the Constitution Of their coun-
try, and who would, as jurors, rescue a fugitive
slave from servitude against the clearest testi-
mony, thinking at the same time, they were
doing Gods service. The excited condition Of
public feeling in many portions Of the North,
would disqualify honest and respectable men
from acting as impartial jurors on such ques-
ton. Besides, the delay, the trouble, and the
expense Of a jury trial at such distance from
home, would, in most cases, prevent the master
from pursuing his fugitive slave. He would
know that should he fail to obtain a verdict
this would be his ruin. BE would then be per-
secuted with actions Of slander, Of false impris.
onment, and every kind Of prosecution which
ingenuity could devise.
The defeat Of the Wilmot Proviso, and the
passage Of the Fugitive Slave Law, are all that
the South have obtained by the Compromise.
They asked for the Missouri Compromise, which
il is known that for one | was always willnq to
concede, believing this would be the most Just,
equitable, and satisfactory arrangement Of the
Territorial question between the North and the
South But that has passed away. California
has been admitted as State into the Union,