The New York Herald Newspaper, April 12, 1851, Page 3

“THE NEGRO CONVENTION IN BOSTON. More Resolutions—Letters from William H, Seward and John Van Buren. Tho following resolutions were passed by the ‘Anti-Fugitive Slave Law Convention, at Boston, on the last day of its sitting :— Resolved, That every provis statute, which commands the commission of a crime, is both morally and legally void; and no judge, magistrate, -officer. or private person, ix under any legal obligation to obey such provision, but when called on to act under it, is bound to disobey it, and assist in frustrating its opera- tion, ration of independence, ix an “inalienable right.” and the right of every slave to bis freedom is always and | everywhere perfect, laveholding, whieh robs men of this dnestimable birthright. is the greatest of crimes. Resolved, That the Declaration of Independence was not a incre manifesto, but a legislative act. adopted and ratified with unusual solemnity, by virtue of which ths North American Btates became thenceforth 4 united and independent nation. | } Resolved, That this great charter has never been re- | pealedor altered, but still remains the original and fun- | damental law ef this Union. the corner stone of our liberty as individuals, and independence as a nation, Resolved, That the Declaration of Independence. when it uttered these memorable words ~ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are ereated equal—that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalien- able rights—that among these are Life, liberty, and the purruit of huppiness’’—gave a legislative sanction to the great principles which it thus prociaimed; and that sla- Yery Was thenceforth stamped ax ittegal throughout the United States by the very letter of the original charter } which made them a nation. Resolved, That the clause in the constitution respect- ing fugitives from service or labor, cannot legally be ap- plied to slaves, for the following, among other reasons :— Ist. Because such a construction ix inconsistent with the declaration of independence, insubordination to which the constitution must be construed. 2d. Because it is inconsistent with the great object of the constitution, as declard in its preamble, to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty, 3d. use there are other large classes of persons in the United States to whom its words are clearly applicable, and it oucht not be ex. | tended to others in violation of justice, even if they were | comprehended in its language. Resolved, That if the constitution, in its true meaning, required the surrender of fugitives from slavery, the pro vision for that purpose would be utterly void in law, be cause requiring the commission of a crime. Rerolvid, That the Fugitive Slave bill, with all its cog- nates, shall be blotted from the Statute book cf the na- tion on which it now stands, a libel upon both the con- stitution and upon the genius of cur goverument Resolved, That each and all of those men who bring commission to represent Massachusetts in. the Congres: ‘of the United States, and who by their spsoches, their votes, or by a cowardly retreat from their post in th» hour of peril, contributed to the enactunent of this law, have proved themselves traitors to liberty, to humanit to the nation, and to the high trust coniided to them by the citizens of Maskachusetts; and that each and all of them shall, as soon as the ball ean reach them. be released from further service in the counsels of the na- tion—to reap in their retirement, the almost unsurpassed infamy, to which their memory is doomed; that they have laid themeelves upon the altar of Mammon, and the fire of heaven shall consume the offering they have laid there. Regolved, That as men, as citizens of Massachusetts, and as citizens of the United States, we will never rest until we rest in death, or in the accomplishment of this, ‘our deliberately formed purpose. LETTER FROM WILLIAM H. SEWARD, in any constitution or | | Resolved, ‘That since liberty, in the words of the decla- | | Seems to me obvious, that the main, if not t with what sulemnities it may have been adopted, must abide the the trial of b> aging of reason, and of truth. It is only in way that the con- stitution can be maintained, and the Union oan be suved. Its security consists in the adaptation to the physical and moral necessities of the broad and | ever extending empire which it protects and de- | fends, and in the facility with which, without vio- | lence or sudden change, errors of administration ean be corrected, and new exigencies can be met, so that the State, free or slave-holding, which i | tered, than it would be under any other, however , Wisely administered, or favorably conducted. I think, my dear sir, that all this is virtually con- feased now by those who, whils they see that their complicated schemes, that suppression of free de- bate, which they thought cesential to tho safety of the Union have ‘failed, nevertheless adinit that the Union is no longer in danger, and, therefore, Ithink that we may at last congratulate ourselves on the | discovery; that not only are extra constitutional | compromises unnecessary, but that the Union has strength and stability enough to endure, notwith- standing that such compromises under the influence of un unwise Legislative distrust, are sometimes unnecessarily and unayailingly made. 1 am, sir, with great respect, Your humble servant, Wituiam LH. Sewann. LECT ER FROM JOHN VAN BUREN. Drar Sin—I have received your favor of the 3lst nuviting me to be present and address a con- n of the people of Massachusetts, who are op- sed to the Fugitive Slave law, on the 8th inst., ut Boston. My engagements here are such as to prevent my complying with your invitation; but I can readily respond to the juest which accom- it, to be informed, by letter, of my senti- ments respecting the law referred to. ‘The act in question Peotones to carry out the fol- lowing injunction of the constitution :— “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of an. 4 law or regulatian therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be lelivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or lubor may be due.”” To avoid misapprehension, I think it proper to say, that, in my opinion, this provision of the Con- stitution, like all the others, should be faithfully enforced. Perhaps no portion of tho je was entirely satisfied with many provisions in the Con- stitution, yet all were deemed essential to secure its ‘ adoption. They all now constitute parts of the in- strument, and should be alike obeyed in spirit and in letter. It is with this allng that I consider,the provision above quoted; and thus segarding it, 1 6 on puy of those who framed it, was, to prohibit each State from passing laws which should release | from labor those legally held to it in another State. Doubtless the difficulty in the mind of those who drew this section, and the one they primarily in- tended to guard against, was the necessity of pre- serving the rights of slaveholders in some ot the States when other States should, from time to time, see tho wisdom and humanity of abolishing slavery. They intended that each ‘State should abolish slavery for itself, and not for its neighbors, and that when a State did so abolish slavery, it should not pass any law which would interfere with the right ofa slaveholder to pursue and retake his slave in Avpurn, April 5, 1851. Dear Sir:—Your letter, inviting me to attend a | convention of the pore of Massachusetts opposed to the Fugitive Slave law, and to communicate in writing my opinion on that statute, if I should be unable to attend the convention, has been received. While offering the pressure of duties here, too long | deferred, as an apology for non-attendance, I pray you to assure the coumittee in whose behalf you act, of my profound sense of their courtesy and kind- ness. It would be an honor to be invited to address the people of Massachusetts on any subject; but it might well satisfy a gencrous ambition to be called upon to speak to that great and enlightened Com- | smonwealth, on a question of human rights and civil liberty. Tae a: sir, that Ihave earnestly desired not to | i in the popular discussions of the measures of t Congress. issue necessari volves | 8 of their advocates and adversaries in the | public councils to the confideace of the country. Some of those advocates have entered the popular arena, criminating those from whom they have dif- fered; -while others have endeavored, by extraordi- nary means, either to control discussion, or to sup- press it altogether, and thus they have shown them- selves disqualified by prejudice or interest, for prac- ing that OT ped mated nd candor which the ocea- sion demanded. . - Tam unwilling even to seem to iaply by reitorat- ing arguments already before the public, either any distrust of the position of those with whom I stood om Congress, or impatience for that favorable popu- jar verdict which | believe to be near, and know to be ultimately certain. . Nevertheless, there can be no impropriety in my declaring, when thus questioned, the opinions whic! will govern my Vote upon any oeasion when the Fogitive Slave law shall come up for review in the national legislature. 1 think the act singularly unwiee, because it is an attempt by a purely tedera- tive government to extend the economy of slave States throughout States which repudiate slavery asa moral, social and political evil. Any despotic government would awaken sedition from its pro toundest sluunbers by such an attempt. The attempt by this government has aroused con- stitutional resistance, which will not cease until the effort shall be relinquished. He who teaches another jaith than this, whether self deceived or not, mis- eads. I think, also, that the attempt was unneces- sary ; that political ends—merely politicial ends— and not real evils, resulting from the eseape of slaves, constituted the prevailing motives to the enactment. I think, also, that the a ils of the measure are | indefensible ; that the denial to the alleged fugitiv of a trial of his alleged obligation to labor, and of his escape from it, by a court, and nothing less than a court of justice, constitutionally organized, and roceeding according to the course of the common jaw within the State where he is claimed, is palpa- bly in derogation of the constitution ; that the rules of evidence which the law preserihes are oppresfive of the weak and defenceless, and that Christendom | might be searebed in vain for a parallel to the pro- visions which make escape from bondage a crime, | by a law retroactive in its effect, and without limi- tations of time to favor the presumption of froe- dom, which, under rigorous penalties, compel fr men to aid in the capture of slaves, and which unmistaken inducements to false claims and fale | judgments. Finally, whatever changes of of | others may have undergone, I retain my earliest | tions that the constitutional provision on | to be founded, is merely and that the Con- | which the law purports a compact betwy the Sta gress of the United States the subject. ; Nor isthe law, which iv so obnoxious in itself, | commended to are ealled the other meats of compror “oun promise implies a mingling of trath and error—right and wrong. One of those affiliated measures de- | nied the admissios New Mexico, because she hid | determined to State, and re: manded her, with permis back in t habiliments of st ¢ distinctly inti- ent of Congress that | wld, slave State in | ees of the continent. A third abolish- eda pu ave martin the city of Washington, without abating either the exsent or the dar of slavery in the Distriet of Columbia. A fourt! obtained peace, on humiliating terms, from one of the youngest and feblest members of the confede- , in wn attitude of se while a fifth only utly wdinitted ¢ as a free State ¢ had refused t ¢ herself wits y. Which one of the tloows merit, to ke received in extenuation Prgitive Sieve law?) But we are told, that bad a these measures were, they were the best that could Le obtained. On the ry. there were always votes cnoazh for the admission of California. Th» thirty-firat Congress t ted her, ant lot che other quest instrueted by the yeople, might and certainly coult not have done wo Nor do I find the Fugitive Save law y f on the gronnd of the already falsitiod p mise of an end of the agita ery in the public; an ogitation whieh otherwise, i< as inseparabl canization aathe winds and clouds are fre acmosphere that encireles the earth. 1 have weigher preover, the argument that some portion of th yple in rome of the States have made the perpet of the Fugitive Slave law » condition of new a¢ of loyalty to the Union, That loyalt ms the con | rowing ia nm our political or. oth 0% hap f that loyalty could he , and expecially on the con 1 regret that anything should hay pened to en bell necepted on lition of forbearing to repe Lean only cay that wi f the government bears, as it ly, are ia the Union for richer, whether ina major + Whether in power, oF power jon, reservation, qualifi nd that we are in the le statute. coms to ns, 0 Wj for poorer, for bet: ty, or in @ minor #4, Without cor Union, not beenn but whether not, not all by means <of compromises or tanlings, but by virtue of the constitution, and that her parties are in » Union on the same terme, for the same tenar A by virtue of the same ob ‘on, and #0 they Il find their case to be, when they offvr to plead constitutional conditions to jus- secession. hatever is irrepealable in any of acta of the late Congress. no one will mad wt to repeal. Whatever is repeal- r shall be repeal. in future acts of Congress, whether it shall or slavery, no matter under what nor with what auspice", aor | tirely clear, that ne offence a, | that effect has recently been passed, a duty roenlting from the | on whom | fied with administra | such free State. I doubt whether there was any absolute necessity for legislation, cither on the part of the State or general government, to enforce this provision. The right of recaption without a breach of the peace, was, in my judgment, the remedy looked to and se- cured by the prohi mn. It was intended, that whatever legal relation in regard to the obligation of service two persons bore to each other by the laws of the State in which they both resided, that relation should not be destroyed by the escape into another State of the one owing service. But whether the States might or might not legis- late to carry out this provisiou, it seems to me en- power over the subject is given to Congress, either expressly or by implication— and it 1s to me inexplicable, how those who are so abstemious in the exercise of power ovér the subject of slavery by Congress, as to leny the authority to prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia, or in the territories of the United States, should have been able to find not only an authority for Congress to legislate in regard to fugitives from service, but an authority so exelusive as to oust the States! This is one of the triumphs of modern ingenuit and so far as the authority to legislate upon subject of fugitives from service is concerned, those who claim it for Congress have on their side the de- cision of the Supreme Court of the United States, on a previous act in the cave of Prigg vs. The Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania. By this decision, judges, in determining the ques- tion of authority, would probably be conoluded. Yut in a popular discussion of the propriety of alaw with a view te its repeal or modification, [ presume we are at liberty to believe in opposition to a de- cision of the Supreme Court. Even the executive and legislative departments deny its authority to bind them. The Supreme Court decided that the Alien and Sedition law was constitutional, and Mat- thew Lyon was imprisoned under it. The Presi- dent, Mr, Jefferson, decided that it was not, and pardoned Mr. Lyon. ‘The Supreme Court decided that Congress could constitutionally charter a bank of the United States, and that the Propriety and necessity of doing so were to bejudged hy Congress. ‘The President, General Jackson, decided that such an act was unconstitutional, and vetoed it. With these examples before me, | feel authorized to ex- pres# the opinion which | entertain, that the Fugi- tive Slave bill is unconstitutional, Congress have no power to legislate oy th rj But to those who regard the ision of the Su- preme Court as conclusive, it is important to con- sider other objections to the act. Conceding the power to Congress to legislate upon this subject, I think the act in question is unconstitutional, because itdoes not give the person seized a trial by jury at the place where he is so seized, and before he is put in the eustedy of the claimant with a warrant to transport him. The error, as it seems to me, with great respect in the legislation of Congress upon this subject, arises from confounding two classes of have no analogy with, or resemblance toeach other. [allude to the surrender of fugi- iv ice and the seizure of persons held to ice—a bare statement of the provision as to fa- gitives from justice will show this, It is in these words * A person chat ed, in any State, with treason, felony or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of i uthority of the State from which he , he delivered up, to be removed to the State ing jurisdiction of the crime.” ‘The striking differs between the two cases are, Ist. The ged veized under the last section is charged with having committed an offence against the pub a ve from service has committed net the public. think, by the laws of Georgia, V Carolina, to escape from servic vide no punishment for it. In May is no erime, I inia, or South the laws pro- land, a law to bat a demand under it, would, of course, be for a fugitive from justice, not for a fugitive from service 2d. ‘The demand under the last section is made by the executive authority of the State—a per- ay to service is claimed by a private indi- val, 3d. The fugitive from justice is to be removed to the State having jurisdletion of the crime. 1 person held to service is to be taken claimant pleases. gress pro ® warrant, which, it says, siall au- thorize the oval of the fugitive from service to the place whence he fled. But the constitution mak»s ho such provision, nor do I believe it coutemplated such a result. The warrant gives the party seized no right to insist upon rried to the place 2 he fled, ng there when he arti If he is seized in New York as a slave, who is alleged to have eseaped from his master at Charleston, I see nothing to provent his being shipped for Brazil, and certainly nothing to preven his being sold in any laveholding State through which he may be carried, and it is notoriously the practice, after exhibiting a recovered slave to the ot slaves on a plantation as a warning, to soll and remove bim to other pai ‘The framers of the constitution saw no necessity for removing thom to the State whonee they fled. They were not, like criminals, to be tried for an offence where , had been committed. They had mitted no o ster was in any way publicly pro- for escaping These glaring distinctions bet: justice, and fugitives been overlooked by fest legis on fugitives from seem to have . lve aot of that al of Virginia to sar were demanded by the > 9 persons whi of Penneylva as charged with the f kidnapping a free m: the latter State, exeentive of Virginia r ito comply with this request, although the constitution made it his duty, on the ground th legislation har | and the person by hold be made (1 Raa. Stave ‘apers, miscellaneous 38, 39.) President Wa - ton, on the request of the Ix of DP vania, laid the ter by the wet of 1793 was passed. grest being directed only | from justice, they seen distinction between such fag | service, and provided the same ‘ irgs for the surrender of both. So far ns | devolved upon State officers the daty of its © tion, it was prononveed by the Supreme | constitutional. (See Martin ve. Hunter's Levees 1 Wheaton, 906. Aleo, Vrigg ve. Penneylva | Commonwealth, 16 Peters 640.) This restricted | the operation of the act to a very limited range, | and the small cumber of cases arising under it dy Congress, and this The attention of Con- »the ease of fugitives have overlooked the «and those held to not seem Senate cumited genteel iuquiry into its constitutionality. But it seems to mo the dis tinctions I have adverted to, show that no argu- ment in favor of the fugitive slave act can be drawn from the u: of nations, or the provision of the constitution in conformity to it which regulates the extradition of criminals, ‘These relate to a public offender—the act in question seeks to enforee a pri- vate right—the former is regulated by the public authorities—the latter is a claim instituted by an individual—the former is preliminary and contem- plates a future trial at the proper place—the latter Is conclusive of the right for the time and probably for ever, and neither looks to nor needs any future trial. In ny judgment, the claim of service secured by the constitution, if it requires a law to enforce it, and if Congrees can pass such a law, can only be provided for by an act which secures the trial of the question in a regular suit before a jury. ‘The seventh amendment to the constitution pro- vides that ‘‘in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial byjury shall be preserved,” & This amendment, as well asthe tifth, which de- clares that “no perton shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” grew out of the opposition manifested to the adop- tion of the constitution, because i not in terms, provide for the trial by jury in civil cases. It is needless to remind an American of the anxiety with which this institution has been watched. It is well described Mr. Justice Story, in the case of Par- sORS ford, 3 Peters, Justice Story also explains what is meant by ‘‘a suit at common law,” in the section quoted. It covers all suits, except those of equity, admiralty, or maritime jurisdic- tion; andthe judiciary act of 1789, chapter 20, sections 9, 12, and 13, carries this construction into racticul operation. It will hardly be claimed that Jongress can take a case which entitles a party to a jury, and deprive him of a jury by converting it into & summary proceeding, or that they can in the same way deprive him of his liberty or property without due process of law. If they could do this, the trial byjury and the due process of law secured by the constitution, become a mockery. ‘Treating thisas a mere question of property exceeding twenty dollars in value, I entertain no doubt that it is a ease where a jury trial is secured by the constitu- tion. It will bo remarked that the provision as to per- tons held to service, has no reference to the color of the person’s skin, who is thus held, nor to the kind or degree of service. The word “ slave” was pur- osely omitted from the constitution; and although Pihigk that this relation was the one in the mind of the framers of tho constitution when this section was drawp, still its language, and the language of the act in question, embraces apprentices, and all other persons held to service. If a jury trial, then, is not secured where @ claim of service is made, the remarkable result would be, that, if a claimant from New Orleans demands ay writing desk at New York, he must try titles with me here before a jury; but if he demands me, I can have no such trial. Is there a difference between a claim of labor anda claim of other property? and is the difference such that, when the claim of labor involves the liberty of a person, the defendant forfeits the right of jury trial? It may be said that a person seized can try the question of his right to treedom by a shat at the place whence he fled. This is a conso- ation, to be sure, to @ man whose freedom has been destroyed by seizure and transportation from his home; and if he could get his witnesses to the place where the claimant concludes to take him, he could have a trial. But the act in question pro- vides no trial by jury anywhere; there is no obliga- tion on the claimant to take the person he seizes to any particular place; and if I have a right to try the question of litle to property I hold at the place where the property is, and where the demand is made, how can it be argued that | have no such right when the demand made is for my thews and sinews? It is urged that juries would not render verdicts in favor of claimants where the right was established. This does not correspond with my observation of jury trials. On the contrary, whatever prejudice jurors may feel against a law, Ihave hardly ever known them to fail in obey- ing the directions of the court upon a point of law. It is also suggested, that the expense of recovering a fugitive by this mode would amount to a destruc:ion of the right. If such an evil ex- ists, it is incident to this unfortunate relation. It certainly furnishes no reason why the constitution should he violated, and a safeguard broken down in reference to the liberty of a human being, which is secured to him in defending a horse or a bale of cotton. But lam passing far beyond the limits of a letter, and devoting more time to the answer of your note than J can weil snatch from profession- alengagements. | must pass over the objection to that provision, which devolves the duties of a court upon a commissioner—a tribunal unknown to the constitution. Ican only glanee at the provision at the close of the sixth section of the w# which declares that the certificate granted der it shall be conclusive of the right of the cla mant toremove the alleged fugitive, and “ shall pr vent all molestation of such person by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate or other person whatey: In iy opinion, this provision suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in a case not excepted by the constitution. Lam aware that the Attorney General of the United States has decided, that a party seized under this act, may still have the writ of habeas corpus; but if it appears on the return to it that he is held under a warrant, or certificate, issued in conformity to this act, he must be remanded to the custody of the marshal or the claimant. The virtuo of a writ of habeas corpus ix, that it enables a party to insti- tute an inquiry into the cause of his imprisonment, and if he is not charged with a crime, or committed by the final judgment of a court of competent ju- risdiction, as a general rule, to be discharged, un- less the right to detain him is established by proof. This I understand to be ‘the privilege” of the writ meant by the constitution. If it had been t idle ceremon; i by the Attorney General, I do not believe the privilege would originally have caused such a struggle to wrest it from a so- vereign, or would have een so jealously guarded hy the United States constitution, and the is of rights in the several Stat There is a single other provision of this remarkable act that I must not omit to notice. It is new, so fur as I recollect— 1 allude to section 10—which provides in substance that a party may go before any court of record in any State or territory, or in the District of Colum- bia, or any judge thereof in vacation, and make proof of anescape, and that the person escaping owed service to such party; thereupon the court shall cause a record to be inade of the inatters so proved, with a general deseription of the person es- caping, with such convenient certainty as tony be— “and a transcript of such record authenticated by the attestation of the clerk, and of the sealof said court ae produced in any other State, territory strict in which the person so escaping may be and being exhibited to any judge, commis- or other officer authorized by the law of the United States to cause persons escaping from ser- vice or labor, to be delivered up, shall be held and taken to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of the per- , is due to the party in such record he section authorizes further ev: given if the claimant chooses, but it is not to be supposed that having a record which is declared by law to be “full und soustusive evie ” of the escape and the verviee due, description of the person a nal testimony, unk ject of identity. The Ju Court bave generally held, that in the summary proceedings authorized by the other sections of the act, they are at liberty to receive counter evidence on the part of the person claimed, to give him a hearing, and if he proves he does not owe the vice, to set him free. But they would harilly ven- ture to receive such evidence in a case arising wader the tenth section, and they certainly would not dare to allow it, on the question of eseape or serviee due, to overeome a record which the statute makes full and conclusive evidence against the person scized, as to both. It will be observed that a party is thas condemned his absence, without a ora hearing, and a record of his condemnation made, which is conclusive against him when he docs appear. Monstrous as this consequence is, it is the natural result of placing the claim of service upon the same footing with the extradition of criminals. It does not require a knowledge of law to be advised that such a proceeding as this stri at the foundation of justice, and trai elementary principles of jurispraden the preliminary steps which, in a ilized coun- try, have been held necessary to acquire jurisdic- tion either of the person or thing proceeded against, an exparte record is made, which is full and con: elusive, to condemn a haman being to a boudage which tay be perpetual; if such a record was in- troduced in any court where judicial proceedings have semblance of justice to establish (he right to an animal not absolately fore natura, it would be scouted from the court with ridicule and contempt But Congress have made it conclusive proot of the slavery of 4 fellow creature. [fas of our northern ladies should claim thei or breast pins with sich a record, he would fai if he demands their persons the record is conela- sive. It is neediessto add, that] think this seetion intrepidly defies the provi f the United State constitution, whieh declar ho person shal! be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without t due process of law. t we are told woe mast not discuss these object. Th who are daily writing, speaking, meeting, dancing, and dining, to put down agitation, admonish us to be sileut. We are told that Congress have adopted a system of compromise mearures on the subject of shavory which must not be disturbed. My recollection of the ceeurrences referred to is different from this. I think, as ® system, they failed; the bill which embodied them as 1 compromise was defented; the cwnibus was upset. Even the most distinguished men who advocated them ins lump, took no part in their fine! passage, It was not watil the distin gtished Chairman of the Committes of Thirteen retired from am eight months’ campaign in the defense, a1 pen iJ Senate, which he lost to reinvigorate his system in the waters of Newport, and his able associate, as a fugitive from the justice of Massachusetts, e: into the cabinet of President Fillmore, that the reveral bills on the subject of Mavery in the United States separately passed into laws.’ Each of them must, therefore, now stand or full by itself. Aguin, we are told that the union of these States is indangor. This information comes to me, at least, exclusively from pol engaged in a particular br: out intending to say anything in the least disres- pectful of either of these highly respectable classes of traders, I cannot ovarian the fuet that they are both seeking Southern support. ‘Their interests, therefore, may mislead their judgments, and cer- tainly their anxiety may magnify, if not make the danger. %o far as I know the feeling of the North, there is a universal devotion to the Union, and a general willingness to secure to the slaveholder his iull constitutional rights. 1 believe the devotion to the Union is almost equally universal at the South. ‘The signal failure of the two Nashville Conventions moderated tone of Georgia, Alabama, and ippi—the loyalty, wisdom and patriotism of Virginiu, North Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, Loui- siana and Tennessee—all serve to show that the af- fection for the Union, which ought to be the com- mon sentiment of every American, and the brother- ly love and mutual respect that should cement it, are limited to no section, but pervade the entire republic, ‘There are, and have been two unions in danger which alarms the aged politicians—I refer to the union ef national whigs and the union of na- tional democrats, Those two organizations have been shaken, if not dissolved, by the agitation of the slavery seaeeeoe and those who derive conse- quence or a livelihood trom either, have been na- turally alarmed at the danger to these unions. But the Union of these States, in my humble judgment, has never been in danger since 1882. 1 distrust po- litical panies, and Washington cries of alarm. I appeal from the fevers and fainting at the Capitol to the sound health and steady pulse of the nation. There is is not a farmer, or mechanic, or laboring man inthe United States, in my judgment, that believes the Union in danger. 1 appeal trom the ar- tificial heat of partisan orators and writers to the more certain thermometer of Wall strect. United States stocks, during all the alleged danger to the Union, have stood firm or advanced. But there is no need of producing this evidence. Those who have assumed a monopoly of saving the Union, I believe now concede that it is out of danger—they find leisure now to save themselves. But I must bring this unreasonably long commu- nication to a close. I have availed fayselt of this occasion to discuss the constitutionality of the Act concerning fugitives. I have treated it as the constitution treats it, altogether as a question of property, wholly omitting to advert to the ques- tions of humanity and freedom, so intimately con- nected with it. have assigned the reasons why I think it unconstitutional, without stopping to con- sider how it shocks every notion of justice and right. 1 do not believe there is a civilized country on earth, that would now enact such a law. 1 do not intend to confine this remark to governments which permit # trial by jury, nor to free governments, nor to Christian governments, but I design to say that no civilized government would tolerate the seizure and subjection to bondage of one of its citi- rens or subjects, in the mode that this law allows, if it does not invite. But 1 have referred altogether to its unconstitutionality. How are its consequen- ces to be avoided? So far as this is to be done b: legislation, it seems to me the remedy is witl the State Legislatures. An excellent bill for that parrots has been introduced into our Assem- ly, by Mr. Coffin, of Otsego; and 1 trust it may become a law. It does not presume to Ha Pre for fugitive slaves. It protects the free inhabitants of our own State, and presumes all the inhabitants to be free. Other States, will, of course, legislate as they deem wise. In’ the ‘meantime, every individual should determine for himself, what respect he will puy to the act of Congress in question. isa distinction hetween an unjust and unconstizutional Jaw. The former must be obeyed Lill it is repealed. Disobedience to the latter i3 frequently the only mode of testing its unconstitutiouality. A distin- guished advocate of our State, the judge of one of our oldest and most tranquil counties, recently adopted this mode of testing the constitutionality of a city ordinance. It is far from my wish to offer any advise to others upon this subject. I have al- ready said, that the law applies to persons of all colors, and to services of every kind, and I would nch of business. With 4 5 saply add, that if should be seized under this law, I should resist iz with all the means I could command, Respectfully yours, Nuw York, April 4, 1861. J. Vay Bune. Tie Lar suooriN@ arya av Mont. Tho Mobile Tyibune, of the 3d inst, publishes tne fol- lowing card from A. Androws, who is under arrest for stwoting Donaldson:— Having voluntarily surrendered myself to answer & supposed violation of the law, growing out of my recent rencontre with Mr. James A. Donaldson, I desire to make a brief statement of all the circumstances connected therewith. I have had no acquaintance whatever with Mr. Donald- son, and cannot but feel a profound regret that our first meeting should have ended so sadly. Glad; would | have avoided it, but feelings over which could exercise no control, the feelings of an in- sulted and wronged husband and father impelled me. Some time since a letter signed Byron, was delivered to my wife by a servant in Mrs. Herbert's house, where we then’ boarded. This letter tained dishonorable overtures to my wife. ler apprehension that it might lead to violence if | was intormed of it, she withheld all knowledge of its receipt from me, but exhibited it to several persons staying in the house. The fact subsequently came to my ears, and feeling justly inconsed at this at- tempt to corrupt the mother of my children, determined if possible to discover whe the writer was. Being unable to trace him in any other mode, | prepared a note which I compelled my wife to y and sign by an assumed name, and ad- dressed it, as the letter to her had requested, and had it delivered to the servant who had brought that letter to my wife. In the letter sign Byrou, the writer stated that if he received a reply, the correspondence could be carried on through the _ office, his letters to be addressed to Klfoa M. urner and my wife's to be directed to Byron, la accordance with Byron’s plan, he immediately re- plied to my wife’s answer to his first letter, which reply I received from the post office, To this | framed an answer addressed to Byron, which | compelled my wife to copy, and which copy I placed in the post office, IT then spoke to a gentleman employed in that office, to ascertain for me who the person was that might call for such letters. Two or three notes passed in this manner between my wife and Byron. A day or two before the reneoun- tre between Mr, Donaldson and myself, 1 was in- formed by the gentleman before mentioned, that Mr. Donaldson had called fur and received the let- ters addressed to Byron. This discovery very naturally exasperated me, and although I was most anxious to chastise the man who was thus secki to disgrace me, | was yet unwil incur the hazard of a mistake, and thereb: wrong an innocent person. Being solicitous to guard ogainst this, I determinod to wait, watil the proof was conclusive. To obtain this | caused my wife to meet the person calling himself Byron at the place designated by him in last letter. I thus becaime satistied that Mr. Donaldson was the man. Finding him in company with my wifo, and conducting her as he had stated it was his intention, to an assignation house, I could no longer command myself, and at once approached him, seized him by the collar, demanded that he should “ accoant for his conduct,” and struck him with a stick | had in my hand. He thrust his hand in his bosom, and supposing that he in the act of drawing a weapon, | drew a pistol and shot him. Previous ‘o my attack, | had no thought of nsing sach a weapon; my object was to cane him for the insult he had offered, and nothing but the excitement in which 1 1 the belief that he was about induced me to employ the pist ix a lamentable one—one not signed or anticipated by me—one that fills me wi } rofound sorrow—not because it may place me in great peril (for a man whose home happiness is orever gone, can place but little value in his own life) but beeause of the painful consequences ea- don others nt is made at this or that the trath may be known, and to steet myself from misrepresentations, and t ap opportunity to others to show, if they ean, that this narrative ie untrue. March 29, 1501 A. Axpnnw P.S ® eh « made in the eity of my wife are wholly « . and will be shown to be #0 A. Asonaws Superior Court, Before the Hon. Fudge Mason N POR MALIOIOUS PROSKCETION John Cook ve T. Stokes Dickerson and Henry ~This Was an action fur malicious proseeuth * imprisonment, Datmnges w« fd at $5,009. The atrest was made on the Oth of February, 1850. by virtue of a Stillwell warrant, ieened hy Judge Rd of int was diemiseod. © The plain. A and that in custody upon the complaint lefendant, Dickerson, the o'er defendant, Nrewster. noting as his at for such arrest act Arai 10.— Pew ster wioner'’s Court. Kefore J. W on, Bey —Charge of Assault with a Dangerons Weapon. James Dallas. eecond mate of the ship New York, was rested and brought up for examination on a eltar, nermulting Charles Read with a belaying pin, white in linvte ir. Kidgway, who appeared for the United States. produced five witnese to prove the aseault; but the Commissioner thought, (as in the ease brought be fore him the previous day, for a similar offence o board enme be it to be a justifiable saeault made im self. 80 discharged the accused, ticians and merchants, | Hen. Danie: Webster at Soringheld. 'd (Mass.) Rey » April 9. From the +f tpringteld on eneaie aes r, Webster arrived .™ - noon, in the express trai, 0m New York. Fora ful the depot, and when the tra.‘ came in. not less than» thousand persona had gathered © ¢t # look at ~ the best ers upon cheers. He Hooked Cxtenas teeted with che °r ad showed that he The crowd followed him to the . Massasoit House, (where he dined.) and stood around it, « 'Vidently desir- tigue upon him. "After dimner, however, he x ™#le his ap- ce on the buleony, and was greeted with # sponta ded, Mr. Webster said:— ; ‘itiaens of Springtield—This pleasant interrupts "of of home, affords me, I assure you, the sincerest gratitie, tion. Tam glad to see your faces here to-day. Iam | that I stand on Massachusetts ground—that Iam a Massachusetts men. I fecl that Fam at home. In other your river, your public squares, your streets of shady elms. knew your neighbors, Mount Tom and Mouat buildings and new faces are seemon your thoroughfares; and yet, I feel that 1 am not changed in my foelings bave as great a desire to serve you, as strong a wish for your Welfare, and as warm an attachment to your inte- the various responsible positions in which you have placed me. hus passed by, and what we now want, and what all the great interests of the country need. is peace, We want se- | hour previous to his arrival, , P¢0Ple had been gathering at abused man” in Christendom, .When he made his a id Was #0, suffering from , "8¥sical indispos- ing to hear him speak, but unwilling to inf °t further fa- and heaetfelt enthasiasm. After the chee, 1s had iny journey from the cares of public business to theqy Het glad to meet you. I feel that T ain in Massachusetts days I knew your thrifty towm of Springfield, I knew Holyoke. ‘They remain, but all clse is ehanged. New tomird your people, or the people of Musswebusetts. “L rests, as Lever had at any period of my pablic life, in “The cloud that has darkened the political horizon curity inthe prosecution of business and of enterprise, We | want protection—I do not mean it in any technical sense, although I should rejoice most heartily in such an ad- justment of the revenue laws as would protect our busi- ness and our labor—but I mean it in that broader sense, to be found in mutual confidence, mutual regard for law, anda univgreal disposition to consult the highest good of the whole Country. It is for thisend that I have labored, | and shall labor, “Iam now on my way home from some months of arduous toil in public business. Iam going tomy farm—to Marshfield. 1 am going to snuff the sea- breeze, and seck for re-invigoration and for rest; but be- fore I pass, allow me to re-assure you of the high gratifi- cation which this brief interview has afforded me. You | have my best wishes for yourselves and for your families.” | ‘The close of this bricf and pleasant specch was greeted with hearty chgers, ax were its various xentiments during , the delivery. Mr Webster was then conducted through | the crowd ‘to the train in waiting for Boston. and the | cars moved out of the depot amid long and heartily given | cheers; The whole affuir was a quiet, respectable and | wholly unorganized demonstration of respect to Mr. Web- ster,and one which must have been gratifying to him ina bigh degree, We noticed among those engaged and | mingling in the demonstration. men of different parties, ¢ leading democrats of this town, aud of the towns around, There was nothing in the whole movement that smacked of party at all, The Tw ‘Tuesday. April 1—Carnal stake, for two year ats; $100 subscription, $50 forfeit :-— W. J. Dlinor’s b. f. Lu Vrai Reine, by imp. Sove- reign, dam Veracity......... sak J.J, Hoghes's b. ¢. Maliomct, by Sovervign, out of Hegira’s dam . ey i 2 James A, Grimstend’s ch. f. by Boston, out of Pi- cayune, (purchased by T. B. Goldsby. who as- sumed the stake) ar J.D, Elliott's ch. f. by Glencoe, dam Martha Ma- ALL. Bingaman’s ch. £. by Gienco Wright... Tstetes Time, 1:56 —1:565;. Secoxp Racx—Same Day.—Bit gaan stake; two mile heats, for all ages; $600 subseription, $200 forfel A. L. Binguman’s b. ¢. Louis d'Or, by Surpedon, dam Picayune, 3 years old... 1 A. Harris's ch, mm. Jane Watson, by D. F. Kenuer’s ch. f, Hegira, by Ainbassador, dam Flight, 4 years old..........00006 ft T. B. Patterson's b. b. Lithgow, by Fanvy, by Eclipse. 4 years old. ft. S.J. Hunter and 1 HL, Oliver's bo ¢. Zam Yorkshire, dam years old pa. by by imp. Zinganee, 3 Time “ Wrosvapay, April 2.—Jockey Club Purse hc. Florin, by imp. Margrave, 4 vars Ol, «(Billy Bond. ) hy imp. Trustee, pertor Court. Su) Before Hon, Judge Sandford TUE BURNING OF TH CKET SHIP HENRY CLAY. Avni. 10.— y K. Lakeman vs, Moses H. Grinnelt and others.—This wax an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants, who are proprietors of the ship Henry Clay, for the eum of $8,054 80, the value of goods shipped ou board that vessel at the port of New York, on 4d Beptomber, 1849, and which were destroyed by fire, 1 been burned at the wharf, at foot f the Sth Sep ‘The uction ix brought against the defendants as common carriers, The goods consisted of several boxes shoes, slippers and randals and were Messrs. HF, Chirk and tioodwin, al that the defendants, as eom- jon of u reward for freight, and safely carry these goods pool, and deliver them to George Rows, ots of the sea only royed. by fire, by dents, oF their on behalf of rriers; but tion of goods goods were reason of the want of care of the di Workmen or servants Messrs. Lord, Gerard, Wendell and Talcott the defendants, deny that they are common dt that their busiuess is the transpos handise bet the ports of New York and Li- hat a receipt wax given by the mate of the ves eelfor ihe goods shipped, but that no bill of lading or other agreement in writing, in re#pect to the Dudia rub. & tited between the parties They | Koods were destroyed by fire; but deny | h the mir at of themselves or «or workmen, the fire he ed the defendants | | " nt. Without the fault of It appeared that the Hemy Clay was freighted pally with cotton, flour and rosin. A witness, who was ene of the watebmen on board ermaceti candles were used on beard put out when the ent down through th f but that | y tick up ag were about 150 hundred barrels kept leading her hate hes were on the lower hold, b way where he board. nor i tou was stowed; evuld blow out a | itheut a epurk falling from it; it is ad ships at night To Mr. Clark. —It t+ only in emergenei arhip after dark; the cotton and b and eeme cloeks, were burned; the rorin and flour were in er hold, aud were not burned; aw nv drinking on beard To Mr. Gerard —It was ta the lower bold that the candles were used After seme furt tothe jury. and t je Drought on Friday morning | | that they load | Court of General Sessions. Mefore the Keeorder and Aldermen Kelly and Worgan Avni 10.—The Anatomical Museum Tried for a Nuisance. | —The trial of Roiph Pomeroy and Charles D. Mamunos charged with creating and 20 Broadway, ww riny the adjournment of the court, on Wednesday accompanied by an officer, visited the An: Museum. in order to ratiefy themselves mors thorou esto the nature and eha only new witness © testified to the and preparation ie bi at No. | urope: ane ns of tis Ae young The tet ne mony. The calling thelr attent The jury not se about an howr, c ‘ | whet the jury were called in, and am al thot they | IM not agree. It appeared that they pictured bandbille | the playing of he of tage from the | al decidedly against Dr. Mam. ; The court advived them, that aa they (i before them two indietments—one fur the ha: dat the ’ nee warranted them | in so finding. With thie new light. the twelve re rgnin to theit room; and after a few minutes’ con tien, returned a verdict of not quilty in. the case of the Jefendant Hammond. In the ese of Pomeroy, they found rt of special verdict, It waa to the effect, that | he was guilty, but only on account of the landtnite and flags, ‘The i er told Mr. Pomeroy he lad better 6 move the flags; the issuing of the offensive handbills has | long since been abated Ciremit Before the I Aven 10 —€ pary of Phitedelph Ceebran, on behalf of t ‘court. sige Miteheil he Cotrmbia Insurance Com stated by Mr. r the amount Our Philadelphia Pwiapenruia, April 10, 1862. Investigation by the Coroner—Horrible Instance of Deprevity —Highway Robbers Arrested, ge Our Coroner has had four cases under his notice tow day. One, an old woman, who probably died from am overdose of opium, but as the money she wag supposed to have cannot be found, suspicions are afloat that some | Person may have administered the poison and then plun- dered her of her hoard. She formerly kept a «ly Duricus of Meyamensing, ‘he investigntion ivan 4 close Two white reamps decoyed a girl into a stable in wark, last night and after xatiating their tlle ge titer. her while a colored man outraged her person, The whole party were arrested by the watch, and are now in prison awaiting a trial ‘Three Southwark rowdies were arrested on the New York boat yesterday afternoon, as she was about to start from the wharf, Upon them were found two watches, which _have since been identified by their losers, who, it appears, were robbed in the streets by these seamps, on Thursday nig, t last. They are locked up for trial The Clerkship of the Superfor Court. Assematy Cuamner, ALuaNy, April 3, 1961. } rt, Esq.—Dear Sir:—A few deya since you pudlisted in your paper an article refleet> ing upon ie, for introducing # bill to abolish the office of Clerk of tte Superior Court. I enclose @ communination whieh | published in the A’nicker- becker of this morning, which, | think, you should publish, inasmuch as the article above referred to appeared in your paper. By inserting it in your journal you will greatly oblige, yours, respectfully, Joun Ryan. CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COVFT OF NEW YORK. (From the Albany Kniekerboeker | Mr. Epiior:—My attention was recently drawn to an article inthe Herald, relative toa bit intro- duced into the Assembly, abolishing the office of Clerk of the Superior Court. Assuming, that as a “respectable ship joiner,” I could have but little idea of the serious effects which the passage of this bill would have upon the administration of justice in the city of New York, | and that instead of introducing it, I should have deferred it to the knowledge of those of his col- leagues who belong to the legal profession—without discussing the question whether legal reform ou to be exclusively and arbitrarily settled by lawyers, and that the entire community have no intellgenoe to exercise, or interests or rights to protect on the subject, permit me tosay that the bill had been previously referred to the delegation, and after due consideration, had received the wianimous eanction of my collengues who belong to the legal profession, and that it was merely reported by me on behalf of DY associates. t must, therefore, be very apparent that tha opinions of the “respectable ship joiner” were en- dorsed hy the members of the learned professien, and on the reasening of the editor they are conse- quently more responsible for the results of such le- gislation. That the bill, however, was correct in principle, and would be safe in practice, 1 cons otibusly be" lieve. In ISM7, after the adoption of the new con- stitution, a democratic Legislature rendered the county clerk, surrogate and register, salaried of- fices, ulthough the incumbents belonged to their own political faith, At the same time, the county clerk was required to provide competent clerks to discharge the duties in the Court of Common Pleas andthe Supreme Court, and the reform would, at the time, have unquestionably extended to the preme Court, if Jesse Oakley had ne clerk, and his brother one of its most distinguished and influential Judges. Ifthe Supreme Court, to Which was added the existing powers and daties of the Court of Chancery, experienced no difficulty whatever under this reform—and the Court of Com- mon Pleas presents no hp nacivartA is not unrea- sonable to suppose that a deputy could, with eqaad success, perform similar duties in the Supreme Court. Indeed, the duties of that court are now frequent ly performed by under clerks; and we remember well that while Jesse Oakley was the incnmbent, no interruption of busin occurred, although be was for months absent in Europe on a tour of pleasure. "he present clerk, we understand, receives a sae lary of $2,500, being the sme remuneration with the Judges of the Supreme Court, who have to pay outof it their travelling expenses throughout the State; and yet the office imposes no greater responsibility or labor than a clerkshbip in the on Plens and Sup ‘ourts, the incumbent of which faithfully discha: their duties for $700 or $200 per annum. Upon this state of facts, showing such an ine quality between dutic# and salaries in offices of the rame grade, even a respectable ship joiner might be allowed to have an opinion, aud with some prospect of its being received with fayor by the constituency A Fs ny lawyers have complacently signed a emonstrauce, at the instance of the clerk, 1s veey natural, aud reminds me that from time immemo- ria] every innovation, however beneficial, hus been similarly opposed. When th form was contemplated in 1847, ving salurice instead of fees to the judges aud tks of courts, remonstra came thick and fast from the learned profession; but owing to the equity of the measure, or the number of “ respoct- ship joiners” inthe Legislature, it was tri- hantly adopted, and experience has proved ite bill now before the House, I have no por- “t or pride of opinion, but feel convinced that the disti nm made in relation to the Su- preme Court, is without any sound foundation, and that a larger vy is given than the actual services rendered wor tify. Jouy Ryan. owners of prot 4 Third . en Street € the mate t, before the work wa: ructec, the supervision of ed from the Street Departuent to the Depar valet the acts 1p the Croty rd nowe tw the months of January and amd necepted by the ¢ en required ont rk was got accom~ vuil di wall it Mat fo rolerred cubical yards ofsoft material, claimed to ri, $04), was allowed and charged ¢ the opiuion of th (And it is Juct Departn nt hav future, the sewers be w constructed wae fom.) cod, The said contract with th ing, paving, &e y for butlding sewer, Tbe completed in five boron on Novemb the contract eont within the fiven the « (Thie ke Femme ‘Th find thet but on gentlemanly con: oor Fred to the Sewer Committem, it bask until near Jan ner ho ly newured by Alderman Alvoo MY ne had be. retained ite Ohm f The petits Anil repented deinys be Chatrman of that ( a of Alderman Alvord img» reportgt bb boned befors ne of it and nani ° ch be Harean of Acoesors, This barcaw ie to make Wp all age aie Ls Tirmerly mao wp hy the firw® *h wl the £21,000 per year, fe i ty him, he * Comin: vierm y the St sioner ference (o the reperts of the present Street Commins dent of the Crotom Roatd, doe. following. that report of Stree nisstom= » St, Board of Aldermen, iy ont ton, HE will be re will he found the vn the ar for eae wher ame nue 4 Himes we mach te rmerly {property in uirihaventes tober, 1849. for one 0, the house of plain. by which he sustained nee offered by Me. FE Meeted on the Sd Wh of October jors excoeding $2900. T optnan. Jr., on bebalf of surance company, wae, that at the time of the fir: f the premises were oe. ctpied as a whickey distillery, which, being extra hazard. ous, Was contrary to the conditions of the policy, Ad. journed The jar in the trial of young Summons for the mur der of bis mother, in Cincinnati, some time siuce, bas ogaia tailed to agree wpom a verdict. hureau sre levied by t ment lirte made out by th el Thi ofebtaint oes hotter tham putting hands ming pay, and & oma ne “better the ine in relvea, only requ abilited to ane atl te Will remedy the & il froperty owners, do nder that your assosemente gh "Phe power to pedenes t seve wrongs ies #108 O8® to make ae ve otumittes, Signed by ‘5 i Jenn ies erity TC. Apow . . Bs wre Bort. B. dleyd E Rishas