OCR Text |
Show 362 LIDEHTY AND SLAVI'.:RY. right at all, he must assctt it in confOrmity with the undoubted 1·ight of the other party, which is to be sued in this, as in all other personal actions, in the place where he resides. In the face of these conside.-ations, it is no wonder that the Congress of 1793 were so unanimous in regard to the Fugitive Slave Law. Though this law did not provide for a jury trial, yet its authors all knew that such trial was not denied to the fugitive slave, if be had a mind to claim it. lienee the law was passed by that CongL"ess, without even an allusion to this moclem abolition objection to its constitutionality. Among all the members of that body who had taken part in framing the Constitution of the United States,* not one was found to hint * The framers of the Constitution in that Congress were:" John Langdon nnd Nicbolns Gilmer, of New IInmpsh.ire; Cn.leb Strong and Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts; Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellswortl1, of Connecticut; Rufus King, of New York; Robert Morris and Thomas Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania; George Reid and Richard Basset, of Delaware; Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey; Pierce Butler, of South Carolina; II ugh Williamson, of North Carolina; William Few nnd Abrn.~ ham Baldwin, of Georgia; nnd last, but not least, James Madison, of Virginia." Yet from not one of these framers of the Constitution-from not one of these illustrious guardians or freedom-w~ a syllable heard in regard to the right of trial by 'l' ll~; l'UOITIVL SLAVE LAW. 3G3 at such an objection. 'fhis objection is of more recent origin, if not of less respectable parentage. An amendment to the law in question, allowing a trial by jury to the fugitive slave in a distant State, would indeed be a virtual denial of the constitutional right of the master. Either because the jury could not agree, or because distant testimony might be demanded, the trial would probably be continued, and put oft; until the c:~.-pcnse, the loss of time, and the WO!Timent of vexations proceedings, would be more than the slave is worth. The language of Mr. Chief Justice Taney, in relation to an action for damages by the master, is peculiarly applicable to such a trial by jury. The master "would be compeUed," says he, " to encounter tlw costs and expenses of a suit, prosecuted at a distance from his own home, and to sacrifice pe1·h.aps the value of Ids p>"operty in endeavoring to obtain compensation." This is not the kind of remedy, says he, the Constitu-jury in connection with the Fugitive Slave Law then passed. The more pity it is, no doubt, the abolitioni!:1t will think, that neither Mr. Chase, nor l\Ir. Sumner, nor .Mr. Seward, was there to enlighten them on the subject of trial by jury and to save the country from the i.nfnmy of such an Act. Alns! for the poor, blind fathers! |