Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1860-04-07

out any process whatever--for the court said he
might do it, If so be that he committed no illegal
violcnce--was ii not obvious that our coored popu-
lntion could be in way safe, do not say against
honest and honorable Shareholders, but against all
men who might come to claim thom--slaye deal
ers They could not be safe, if there was TO be
process il no court was to pass upon it, # no
body was TO interfere with it, If he was TO exer-
else this right without any limitation, or without
any arrangement or control, how could they be
safe 1t was very natural; and did happen, ms
the Senator from Georgia says, that in Vermont
they began as early as l94l; yes, sir, two years
after that decision. When they understood the
decision, they did say, "Now, this will not do
We cannot have people subjected to this sort Of
arrest. If these men have the power to arrest
him; If they are entitled to q man rs n slave, let
there be due process let there he given to our poo
pie some sort Of security" Therefore they did
provi lie that the taking Of slave without process
should be unlawful-iegal. Was there anything
extraordinary in thatl Can you see in that moth
ing but cnmity TO that provision Of the Constitu-
ton Clearly, not at all
That case further decided too, that the State
magistrates might act under the law Of 1898, if
they pleased not otherwise; but if the States for
babe it, they could not. They decided another
thing that this subject Of the retaining of fugi-
tves from labor was peculiarly and exclusively the
business OF the General Government. They de-
cided not only that the States had no right even to
make law to carry it into effect j know that
Judge fancy and Judge Daniel differ as TO that (;
they dissented on that point; but all the rest of
the court, belieye-unlcss, perhaps, Judge Nc
Lean, certainly Judge Story and majority of the
court-decided that all laws made by the States,
tending to secure fugitves, were utterly null and
void Therefore the States were, by that decision,
released from all obligations. They were not ex-
pected to do anything about it, friendly or I'M
friendly. 1t does not seem to me that there can be
,,,.1. ,Ia
not carrying into effect the fugitive slave law or
that provision Of the Constitution, when they
distinctly and expressly told that it was none of
their business; and that all the laws that they
could pass about it, or in any way inconsistent
with that provision of the Constitution, were
simply and utterly void.
The legislation which was made on that occasion
in my State provided for the security of our citi
zens by the act Of 1874, of which the Senator from
Georgia complains, though | do not understand
from his note one thing. He says that our act de-
MES to the district court Of the United States pow
er to entertain a Ihabeas corpus. do not know
but that may be So but it is out Of my mind, and
| think il is not the fact. But when our people
said their sherffs and justices should not interfere
with it, and that people should not be taken
without process Of law, they further provided that
nothing in that act should be considered us extend
ing to any person that was acting United
States judge or marshal, or anybody acting under
him. 1t is true that other legislation has since
taken place. When, in 1850, the new fugitive
slave law made. it is true that 1t was received in
that quarter much the Senator from Ohio says
it was in his State. 1t was obnoxious, abhorrent;
it was against the feeling Of our people, and es,,
pecally that part Of it which required them to be-
come aids and assistants in the following and rum
ming after alleged fugitives, under heavy penalties.
1t is said that tins act was essentially the act of
1898. We did not view it so; we do not now. By
this rprtain co1la1 commissioners ,vh
were appointed by the district courts, are clothed
with certain powers. Those commissioners had
existed before that. They existed by law, appoint
ed by the courts for certain purposes. Those pur-
poses were to take depositions to bind over crim-
nails, take bonds--in short, all the preparatory
steps looking to trial in some court. But they
were mere ministerial officers, with no power of
adjudication, no power of decision. Under the
law Of 1898, in relation to fugtives from justice,
all that is done is TO return the man who is n fug
tive from justice TO other STATE, for The pur-
pose of taking his trial there. 1t looks TO n irial
1t is mere preparatory step But when you come
to this law of 1850, to all practical purposes the
commissioner is clothed with final power Of adudi-
cation, which is entirely feature.
know justices might send a man out under the
act OF 1913, If ,hey pleased net: Int that
all safe, as they were our own officers. So far as
the courts, the district judges, or circuit judges,
are clothed with authority, the acts of 1850 and
100 hie ullht, Dut, us TespeClS Inc powers Win
which the commissioners arc clothed, ,hcy ara ut
terly unlike. Whom application 10 made
commissioner, and man is brought before him,
said to be fugitive from labor, he hears and de-
cides the case. He sends him, if you please, from
New England TO Texas. | do not know but hat 4
man might claim aLoiher fugitive from labor
who was an apprentice. The very first man, if
you please, Of the State Of Virginia Georgia,
might lind some one coming and claiming his son
as an apprentice, for service due in California; and
the commissioner must send him there. You will
observe the commissioner does not in this case,
send back the man, as the fugitive from justice is
sent, for the purpose Of taking his trial in some
court. He sends him definitely; does il not look
10 any court. 1t is not ministerial act prepara-
ary to trial anywhere. 1t is not step preparing
him to be tried by any court. 1t is ultimate, def
ntive, to all practical purposes. Our people look
upon this us different entirely.
Mr. Mason. The Senator will allow to make
an inquiry Of him. l understood the Senator TO
say that there were powers conferred on these COM
missoners, by the act Of 1850, which had not been
conferred upon the judicial officers mentioned in
the act of 1898.
Mr. Collamer did not say So
Mr. Mason. WELL understand the Senator 10
say that power is conferred on these commissioners
to adjudicae. Now ask the Senator, power TO
Mr. Collamer Whether the man is a fugitive
from labor or not.
Mr. Mason. The Constitution Of the United
States says that if person held TO labor service
in one State shall escape into another he shall be
delivered up upon The demand of the claimant
Mr. Collamer To whom the service is due.
Mr. Mason. Upon the demand of the claimant
to whom the service is alleged 10 be be due, or is
due.
The requirement of the Constitution is, that if q
persen held to service escape, he shall be delivered
up TO that person to whom the service is due
Mr. Seward. On claim.
Mr. Mason. He shall be delivered up, not to the
person 10 whom the service is due, because that
would lead to that inquiry; but he shall be deiv-
cred up to the claimant. Now, would submit TO
the Senator this: what does the Constitution sub
init to The party who is to adjudcate' Does it sub
NIT anything more than the question, whether the
alleged fugitive was held to service, or does it sub
NIT the single question, was he held to service,
whether righttully or wrongfully, and did he es-
cape? Having had something to do with the law of
1850, ] aver that that law submits to the judicial
authority that single inquiry: was he held to SER
vice? without inquiring whether he was rghtfnlly
or wrongfully held-was he held 10 service, and did
he escaped If it is found that lie was held TO SER
vice, and did escape the Constitution requires that
he shall he delivered up, and the law says So That
is the whole of it.
Nr Collamer. An that does not relieve the sub