Western Sun & General Advertiser, Volume 9, Number 51, Vincennes, Knox County, 21 November 1818 — Page 2

IMPORT MT DECtSlOM Deli vr red nr yre bv. DE.YJ4Ml V P IK KF.y at CoRfoott W wttRtR 3, la 1 8. John L. Chastian. a Citi2cn ofKy. AO INST Susan (alia Sook.) a woman of color Sc a fugitive slave from the state of K.. Sns m, a pri son of color, bein brought before me, upon I warrant issue A upon the complaint of her mister, John L. C aastian, a citizen of the state of Kentucky who claims her as a fugitive from labor ; it apearcd that cognizance ofthe cisc had been taken under a law of this state, which provides that a nn r'si lent h tving a claim to the service of any p 'son in t!is state, shall procure a v irrant, from a Judge or a j u s- u of th peace w o being satisfied ofthe validity ofthe claim, shall certify the case In the next term of the circuit court for the county, where a trial by jury shall he had in the ordinary mo le ; and upon virdict and ju Igment bein ; obtained against the s U'VaUt the court shall srarit a certificate authorising the claimant to remove the servant out of the state. That the claim of Chastian having been asserted under this law, the case was certified to the circuit court for the county of Jefferson, and being dismi isedby the claimant, a hill in equity was filed k an injunction obtained against him for the purpose of inveisttgating the claim of the girl to her freedom. The claim, however, being brought before me, the case pending before the state court, was dismissed, and a motion submitted, for the dismissal of the warrant, Upon the ground. That the 3d clause of the 2d section of the 4th article of the. Constitution of the United Sutes confers no authority on con jresaoo the subject of fugitive slaves; And therefore that the act of congress fl9 Feb 1793) is unconstitutional. But admitting the constitutionality of thai taw, it was contended that the sc-

v i sutes nave an authority concurrS v fcth conrcs?,to legislate on this sub j Hid therefore that any proceeding ItlN er the law of this stale December 30, . 8 i 6) already mentioned, operates to tlu exclusion of any authority) derived fro a tue act of congress. F (or to the adoption of the constitution f t.ie United States, the Inhabitants of : ie stales, where slavery prevailed, e exposed to many inconveniencies, fro n the escaping of their slaves into other states, where slavery was not tolerate i. From the different views entertained fttie subject it was thought unnecessary or improper to aid In their restorationand in the state, where colore I persons were free, persons escaping from the scrvicefcft icr masters, became emancipat ed bth;AiLjavs. To Correct these abuses pfarent collisions between the several stales. to secure the enjoyment of proper:;- according to their laws respectively, and to enable the owners of slaves, fleeing from their service, to re-claim them, the constitution provides, that no person he'.d to servic or lahor, in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in ConscjU Mice of any law or regulation therein be discharged fro n .vac i service or labor hut shall be d divered upon the claim ofthe party, to whom iuch service or labor may he tine, and in Conformity to t us provision of the con ttitutton, congress sec r tingly enacted, that iny person held to service o labor,in any tate according to the laws thereof, escaping Into another state, may be sei ' I by i e person to whom sucii servi e or labor is due, and taken before a jC of the U tited States or any v tac;rite l a county Sec. who, upon proof to satisfacti n, th it the person so sized, doth, under the laws of the state, from which lie or she ile I owe service or lah r to the clai nant, shall give a certlfi at l tereof, ui I w ixh shall be a sufficie it warrant to remove such fugitive, to the st ite from which he or she escaped. This case has probably furnished the Brat occasion on which the Validity of this law has been uestioned which is cited bv ju ;e ucker in his commentary on the constitution ofthe United States C0 TuckerS Black. S65 and by the su-

(in I believe Qlen vt Ho lcs 9th lohn. 67)with approbation, and which has been recognised in many cases before the judges and courts of this country. No reason has been so gested to influence a deviation from this current of authority ; and the case, as regards this point is considered clear of doubt or difficulty. Uefore thr pissie ofthe act of congress, n vners of 'aves escaping into other states must have resorteih to the laws o! those states for the recoverv of their propertv thev had no other means Of rid.re-is; hot when in conformity to the constitutional provision, conres lc

gislateci and provide J aremcrly commcn-

surate with the object m view, it supercecded any state ree;ulati n tucn existing, or that might thereafter be adopted. The idea of an authority concurrent in the Federal and state governments, appears to have been carried too far in the argument and if admitted) would be pregnant with tuc greatest mischief, -and the source of perpetual collisions between the state and tnc genetal government. The case of taxation c. are not apposite A concurrent povrawmay be exercised, on ths s e.n l".'AVj.' different purpo ,fs, but nol tvlct dnment ofthe same end. If law ofthe same tenor and effect are enacted, one must be useless but if thev dilferin the remedy, and in tlu? mode of obt lining it, their relative authority must be determined from a recurrence to the source from whence they originated. In the formation of the constitution of the U. S. the states parted. with this authority, and devolved it upon tire general govemmct, and it is a privilege secured to the people of the states, respectively, to s ek redress before the tribunals, and in the mode di sign ated by congress By the law of congress a judge or magistrate is competent to decide, finally, the case of a person escaping from the service of the owner,but bythc law id" the state, if satisfied of the validity ofthe claim, he is to certify the case to the cirCUlt court; l. the former, the case is to be determined in a summary wayyicc rding to the latter, by a court aidfc V a jury by the former, there is a iV tionary power as to the reception oVevidence in support ofthe claim; by the 1stter,thc case mutbc conducted as i ; u nal in suits at common law and ii is unnecessary to enquiret whether one or the other, is best calculated to promote the ends of justi e. It is sufficient, that congress have prescribed the mode, and the motion must therefore he overruled. The above opinion havingbeen delivered, several point3 arose touching the admission and effect ox testimony. 1st. Iii regaid to Susan, claimed by Chastian, it was stated, that mr. Lane,

one oi the attormes iti tlie cuiuc iiad

.

procured, ana was in possessiotMa ei

dence in support of Susan's freedom and as he was absent, a motion for a continuance was submitted. The case originated in April last was heard in May and postponed for further argument. Even at this term it was suspended for several days atopic opportunity was given lor preparationother counsi was associated with mr. Lane from the comim ncement of the c a se -no reason v.' as a s s i gne d fo r his absence, or Ids not havinc: forwarded the evidence of whi h he might have been possessed and there was the less hesitation felt in r ejecting the motion, ; -ny evidence of this character, Would be as available in Kentucky, as in this state. 2d It appeared from a record of a suit before the Circuit court, for the county of Hardin, y. that L. Chastian, having married and had issue, by his 1 1 -t wilt and testament, directed that the slaves of whom he might be possessed at the time of his death, should be free, males at 25, and females at CI years of age that his wife died; that subsequent to the date ofthe will, the testator entered into a second marriage and b .1 issue that the children of the first marriage were the sole deviseesthat the children ofthe latter, exhibited a bill in equity, a gainst the issue of the former marriage, to set aside the wiil and that the facts charged in the bill, being admitted, the court decreed accordingly. It was objected, that from the facts disclosed by the record, it appeared, that the parties to the suit were equally interested in the rev;. cation of tire wiil ; that collusion in obtaining the decree Uii'nt therefore be inf o-red ; and that inasmuch as Susan h'd not been male a party to the suit, she was not concluded by the decree It was unnecess to enquire into the accuracy ofthe opinion of the judge in making the decree, or the motives that influenced the parties in seeking to obtain it. The courts of that state are the best expositors of th ir own laws, an 1 the nature of the evidence, upon which to fo?md a decree ; and it suhVcd that it appeared there was a subsisting decree, by which the will of Chastian was revoked. Generally, the judgments and decrees of a sister state founded upon the appearance of the defendant, or the act tal service of process on nis psovut-c conclusive between the parties j"Q)is suit, it was unnecessary to make Snsan a parte ; a regarded her service, she was not to be considered as a person, but as propertv and subject to the laws applicable to decedents estates In Virginia slaves emancipated bv last will and testament, may be sold for a term of years, to satisfy the debts of the tcs

tator, it there

without. 3d It was suggested, that should a certificate be awarded, Susan might apply to the same judge, sitting in court, for an injunction This would have been irflnecessarv. Any tiling that au

thorise an mi motion, w u.d atfpvaV---

lid objection to the granting of "sAi

ii ate. A summary proceeding is pro-

v led for this particular class o; cacs ; and the cert'th ate of the judge is conclusive, even on a writ of ha1:, c r. A certificate was a varded. 4th. In the case of Mafi im, & her children claimed by col. Wa'd, of .eniucky, surviving admr. of Jacob Kouna, it appeared that the negroes had been taken, some before one, and the others before another Justice of the Peace, for the County ot Wayne, in this state ; and t ic evidence produced not being satisfactory, they were discharged. This was urged aa a decisive objcvtion lo any further proceeding in the c tse but the decision of the magistrates could not be considered in the tight of a judgment) and therefore, a bar to the asso don of the rieht ofthe claima t, before another tribunal; neither the law of Congress ; nor the construction it has uniformly r -i ived in this country) justify such a conclusion. d besides, the escaping from service and fleeing into a nol state is to be considered in thevgpf m i If ' t v

an onence ; ana a oici;arte ov u mia

gistrate, a bill not found ljrivi

ry, or an acquittal upon v.i insntm

indictment, would not conclude a prosecution for the same offence. ath. Affidavits of sundry witnesses being offered in evidence, by col. Ward, they were objected to because notu e, of time and place of taking them, had not been given to the opposite party asul it was strongly urged, that the reception of evidence in that way. might jeopardize the freedom of every colored person in the state. The law authorises a certificate of removal on rral testimony cr affidavit. Ti.e objection would confound an ;.mda it and a deposition, between whi h there is striking dissimilarity, and of which, it is to be presumed) Congress in enactii g the law, was apprized an affi lavit is an oath in writ';'. , sworn before someperson who has authority to take suclroath a deposition, is the testimony of aViiness put down in writing, by wayVjf answer to interrogatories, exhibited for that purpose, and upon such notice as to afford the party, against whom it is to be used, an opportunity of cross examination. Perjuries may be committed, and frauds pra tisedto the prejudice of colored persons, under this form of evidence, but imaginary evils furuuh no reason, why the law should not neVV -c-d ; tin y arc matters of lcgL!aliflPnoL of judicial investigation 6th. A bill of sale of Mariam, from Lai cch D.is to Jacob Kouns, being produced, an aflidavit was ottered to prove the band writing of Davis ; at.d objected to because the witness did not stat the source from whence I e derived his knowledge of the party's band

"as not comormc to,

properly sustained.

9b. The lat quts'ion in this casv, was for a continuance, upon the ground, that it was believed, that testimony ca.uld be procured to eatabiisb the fact, tbagt Maiiam was born in Pennsylvania, subsequent to the year I7ri ; and brought i,o Kentucky, ar.d SL;d a vl ..c ; a ..iti were a continuance refused, a- . ! e iglit be hurried oil, totlie lower c i rv. the Mississippi, it wqi J forever, pi-.-cmde her from an opportunity of -olertini her irccdoni. rherc was no necosfcy for pf.otoing the case, ui dcrt lipe . . . ;. ing t)4s testimony ; ii it realiy it

teaaai UabJeio :. u.fey o, Luc -

writing.

It appeared that being askcfL" wl tin r he d'nl not know and hcilftc t

I

toe s: oiiturc to toe bUiol sa:

r he-

bat

S tnc

hand writing of Lamcch Davfywthc

witness answered that u he was confident it was " This would seem to be sufficient. The fact of a witness having seen the party write or l is having had an epistolary correspondence with him, usually c imes out on a cross examination ; and to be sure, if reou red, must neces ai iiy he disclosed. But Independant of the bill of sale, from the affidavits produced, it appeared) that one witness had know n Mariam from the year I 7 S . another from ah nit the ynar IrSHtV1 another since the year 1808, Jvheld by Kour.s, and tliose from NliriM derived, title. This was sum lent 7th. As to the identity of the servants. Ooe witness stated that he had known Mariam for several years in the possession of Kouns and his family. Anothi r witness, maj. Thornton, knew Mariam and two of her childred. He ob crvetl, that although be could not particularly identify the younger children, yet, from his having knownRouns family intimately, for 3 or 10 years, and frequently seen Mariam and her children as part of it, ! s believed they were her children, and tiic property of the heirs of Kouns. This was deemed sufficient. 8th Affidavits were offered in ehlencc on behalf of M iriam, and oWr to, he an-" autheni'eatcd by t 'aeyit .

only, of t!te justice before whom tley

Were taken.

Affidavits are admissibjeazainsi. and of course, for the person, agaut w.hom a compla'mt is ex'ehit rd ; but t to be accompanie 1 by the reqaTte t . timonial ff the o.Tu ial character of tl ma istrate. The mode of authenticat -on has been preaciibcd by law, and as it

But it has .-.in dy zpryc, - ' i worn n had been i t :.. j , ,,, as a slave in k i tt ch f .. . and t'.:s recognie I, i. : of drae, the t tim : . n

should be c uti o . . rccei . ii

summary pioi ding. It i i - a i;.t l v1 ii 'i

. .v ..... .. . . l r

uas limited to the i.i , A i

scrvre and labor to the c?aimaj t, . ' cording to the laws of Kentucky ; and c-f which, evidence of pn bible cause was auffictent to auihoiise the to t; rant a certificate aigumem v. patiently listened to f . s , much, was addressed t the : very little to the judgment. Wl etl -it is just or political (br tlx Kcntut kians

permit tlie transn rtation . . -. B t

l..u:.iaua or elsewhere, j:; 5 n a; r.in which wc have no authortt) to uu Uic. They arc competent to det rmini , and mnu a c!ue estiauateof their own r:Lnicipal regulations. And whilst we ae so sensitive on certain abstract w -tions touching the lights of man, ti c comity due to independent sutes; and the rights secured to their citizens by the constitution of the U. S. is not to ho forgotten. Common charity won.., induce the belief that they participate with us in the common feelings i l I:I inanity and of justice and that th t ights and piiw.t ges of their f. How ereaturea can be, and are ascertained and enforced, according to their laws. But were it otherwise,wbiIst wc laent the hapless lot of the African rsendant, we are not to countenance a system, that would render this state the receptacle, and our tribunals tl e on)y forums, b which the freedom or slavery of all the fugitives from ail the wnl states, is to be determined The idea

Suggested that m this state rolni f A t

sons were prima facie free, h- ,r

eral rule, correct, in regard to tlo w 1 I ? 1 ....

wv wive Kquxrcu a aomtcil amongst us; but the reverse of this maxim applies, most swi(tl , to those recently Vcaped from e :!ave stfte ; for there , ry are prima farir slai es. And vc arc not to look to the declaraticn incur Bill of rights, or the reasoning in ?! t case of Someiaet, fei the rulc,brwl ich this case ought to have been determined. Thai has been establisl rd by th constitution an 1 laws of the V. S. and to which, as a' member ofthe Cnion, it behoves es to confoi m. A c( rtificate was granted U col WuA

1

STOP THE TtilEFU Fifty Dollars Reward LfJ

i T O L E N

I f: om the v.tr-

i..

y b

aei

vWtaj

tnv. n ot V ii cen

ncs,on the night ofthe 7il ist.t. L:;bot

n .i r ma a e MA har.cls highi 7 vcars o!d, a sr.. all white star in her 'forehead, reft hand some head sad neck, short tail, ittle white on her hind feet, hardly i ratable she is a natural trotter. It i sap posed she has been taken down the Wabash probably to Shawneetown. Whoever will return the said niaic to me living near Princeton, and secure the ' ief so that he may be brought to justtcOf shall rc ceive the above reward , or twen

ty-rue dollars for the mare onlv. JA's B. M GARR Tr.

Kovember 21 is is. 51 tf

V

PUBLIC NOTICE.

I SHALL place in the hands of iflfc van & Callf on the 1 5th of Decstober next, ail sccouuts and not clue (he g t firm of Jokes Sc Dvnoi! i:yf own accounts and notes, thoe ho wish to save costs uil nv me. mVk callbe

i

foi- that time

Wm. JON! r.

ovember 1

1 Ori(T..-l do h r . .

all persons from trc nassint? snr

further on the CO VL i W ol 1 i v.-ii Stmly. oh White Rirer, under the pMH aiiy of the La t , n . W. R t . 1 1 N E, No? r. :. d' r s .. .

n