A defence for fugitive slaves, against the acts of Congress of February 12, 1793, and September 18,...

Front matter

OS TONTA>.

CONDITA AD. > a s | on

FUGITIVE SLAVES as re eae pike Si “against THE AcTS OF CONGRESS OF FEBRUARY 12, 1793, AND ae SEPTEMBER 18, 1550.

Chapter I

Unconstitutionality of the Acis of Congress of 1793 and 1850. SECTION l.

Avmirtine, for the sake of the argument—what is not true in fact—that the words, ‘person held to service or labor,” are a legal description of a slave, and that the clause of the Constitution in reference to such persons, and the Act of Congress of 1793, and the supplementary Act of 1850, for carrying that clause into effect, authorize the delivery of fugitive slaves to their masters—said acts (considered as one,) are nevertheless unconstitutional, in at least seven particulars, as follows:—

1. They authorize the delivery of the slaves without a trial by jury.

2. The Commissioners appointed by the Act of 1850, are not constitutional tribunals for the adjudication of such cases.

3. The State magistrates, authorized by the Act of 1793, to deliver up fugitives from service or labor, are not constitutional tribunals for that purpose.

4, The Act of 1850 is unconstitutional, in that it authorizes cases to be decided wholly on ex parte testimony.

5. ‘The provisions of the Act of 1850, requiring the exclusion of certain evidence, are unconstitutional.

6. ‘The requirement of the Act of 1850, that the cases be adjudicated ‘in a summary manner,” is unconstitutional.

7. The prohibition, in the Act of 1850, of the issue of the writ of Habeas Corpus for the relief of those arrested under the act, is unconstitutional.

These several points I propose to establish.