Recapture Of Slaves

In the recent Sláve Case in New York city, Judge Edmonds, in his decisión, ' went over the whole ground of tliö laws ' respetíiing the recaption of slavea, and ' gave an interpretat ion to Judge Slory's celebratcd decisión in the Prigg" case quite diflerent from ihnt which has hithefto prevailed. The following extract will show the poinls of diiFerence. From ihe Truo Weslcyan. fi We will now close wiih what we re gard as decisivo on the subject of Judge Story's decisión, so far as Judge Edmonds' opinión goes. u The very worst'' feature of tliat decisión, which brother Leavitt says Judge Ëdmonds recognises, we suppoae tobe the opinión ihat the owner of aslave may size his slave ín a Ctec State, wherever he can find him, without precept and remove hum without any process of law, or proof before any court, if indeed such a decisión has been made. Now hear what judge Edmonds says on this point. He refers to the Constitution, and to the law of 1793 founded upon it, and then cominents as ful-1 lows J" As I read and undorstand this statute, i t clearly eontemplntes thnt the riglit to t eolaim a fugitive slavo shall not be c :sed except by due protíess of law, and lever vi el arms. Such at least was ihe ontemporaneous interpretatioñ by r jressof this provisión in theConslitution, t md would forbid to tho owner-and ifto r iim, then sure to his agent or attorney- - a 1)8 rïght by stfong hand, by fastened latche?, blows and hand-cufts, to enforee L i reclamationi And such a construcción ' leemed to me most consonant wiih the r principies of our institulions, which Cor 3d that ány one shall be depr'ived of life, ( libefty or property, except bydue course . af lavVi The Süpreme Court of the United 1 States, however, seem, in the case of i Prigg. vs. Com. of Penn., 16 Peters 529, to TiaVe intimated a different opinión, though as that point was not necessarily before them, andas the cjuestion subrnitted ' to them by Convent, was the tionality of a law of Penn., and the power of its Legislaturo to pass any law upon the subject it may wcll ha doubted whether their remaiks were not obilct dicta But if they are olHerwise - if pnrtinent and decisivethev arestill care fully guarded with thö qunliíicationj that the party may C1 Claim and re-také his wife, child or sérvant, whéfevet he happens to find them, sd it be not in a fiotous manner, or attnndpd with a breach of the peace ; u " and the owner may seize and re-captare his slave whenever he cando it without any breach üf the peace or any illegal viulence 1 " On this we remarle, 1. Judgs Edmonds gives his opinión directly i the teeth of what is supposed to be the decisión of Judge Story. 2. He says tint the Supreme Court of the United States seem Jo have intimated a different opinión, by which lis clearlv refuses to recognize that part of the record as a decisión, regarding it only as an inlimation, and as such, merely a séeming onéi 3. The Judge clearly intímales that whatever may bo thé meaning of the words usnd by Judga Storyj they do not possess the forcé of a legil decisión, as that point Was not submittöd as anv pan of the issue agreed upon by the parties, but were merely thiugs said by the way; ■ohiter dicta;" that is, an opinión given as a passing remark, whic'rij notplying judicially to the case, is not to be resorted to as aulhorityi 4. If ihe opinión is really a binding decisión, Judge Edmonds still intimates ihnt the qualifica,tions thrown a round it, forbid the fenrful construction which has been put upon ti The words are "The owner may seizennd re-capturehls slave, wherever he can do it without any brench of thé peace, or any Ilegal violence." - Now noihing can be plamer than thai Judge Edmondá would consider any arrest without precept, and forcible removal without warrant, a breach of the peace, and iliegal violence, and per consequence, not authorized by the terms of Judge Story's decisión.