"The writ de Nativo Habendo lieth for the lord who claimeth inheritance in any villein, when his villein is run from him, and is remaining within any place out of the manor unto which he is regardant, or when he departeth from his lord against the lord's will: and the writ shall be directed unto the sheriff.... And the sheriff may seize the villein, and deliver him unto his lord, if the villein confess unto the sheriff that he is his villein; but if the villein say to the sheriff that he is frank, then it seemeth that the sheriff ought not to seize him: as it is in a replevin, if the defendant claim property, the sheriff cannot replevy the cattle, but the party ought to sue a writ de Proprietate Probanda: and so if the villein say that he is a freeman, &c., then the sheriff ought not to seize him, but then the lord ought to sue a Pone to remove the plea before the Justices in the Common Pleas, or before the Justices in Eyre. But if the villein purchase a writ de Libertate Probanda before the lord hath sued the Pone to remove the plea before the Justices, then that writ of Libertate Probanda is a Supersedeas unto the lord, that he proceed not upon the writ of Nativo Habendo till the Eyre of the Justices, or till the day of the plea be adjourned before the Justices, and that the lord ought not to seize the villein in the mean time."[179]
These authorities are not merely applicable to the general question of freedom, but they distinctly contemplate the case of fugitive slaves, and the "suits at Common Law" for their rendition. Blackstone speaks of villeins who "ran away"; Hargrave of "fugitive villeins"; Comyns of a villein "who flies from his lord against his will"; and Fitzherbert of the proceedings of the lord "when his villein is run from him." The forms, writs, counts, pleadings, and judgments in these suits are all preserved among the precedents of the Common Law. The writs are known as original writs, which the party on either side, at the proper stage, could sue out of right without showing cause. The writ of Libertate Probanda for a fugitive slave was in this form:—
"Libertate Probanda.
"The king to the sheriff, &c. A. and B. her sister have showed unto us, that, whereas they are free women, and ready to prove their liberty, F., claiming them to be his neifs unjustly, vexes them; and therefore we command you, that, if the aforesaid A. and B. shall make you secure touching the proving of their liberty, then put that plea before our justices at the first assizes, when they shall come into those parts, because proof of this kind belongeth not to you to take; and in the mean time cause the said A. and B. to have peace thereupon, and tell the aforesaid F. that he may be there, if he will, to prosecute his plea thereof against the aforesaid A. and B. And have there this writ. Witness, &c."[180]
By these various proceedings, all ending in Trial by Jury, Personal Liberty was guarded, even in the unrefined and barbarous days of the early Common Law. Any person claimed as a fugitive slave might invoke this Trial as a sacred right. Whether the master proceeded by seizure, as he might, or by legal process, Trial by Jury, in a suit at Common Law, before one of the high courts of the realm, was equally secured. In the case of seizure, the fugitive, reversing the proceedings, might institute process against his master, and appeal to a Court and Jury. In the case of process by the master, the watchful law secured to the fugitive the same protection. By no urgency of force, by no device of process, could any person claimed as a slave be defrauded of this Trial. Such was the Common Law. If its early boast, that there could be no slaves in England, fails to be true, this at least may be its pride,—that, according to its indisputable principles, the liberty of every man was placed under the guard of Trial by Jury.
These things may seem new to us; but they must have been known to the members of the Convention, particularly to those from South Carolina, through whose influence the provision on this subject was adopted. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Mr. Rutledge had studied law at the Temple, one of the English Inns of Court. It would be a discredit to them, and also to other learned lawyers, members of the Convention, to suppose that they were not conversant with the principles and precedents directly applicable to this subject, all of which are set down in works of acknowledged authority, and at that time of constant professional study. Only a short time before, in the case of Sommersett, they had been most elaborately examined in Westminster Hall. In a forensic effort of unsurpassed learning and elevation, which of itself vindicates for its author his great juridical name, Mr. Hargrave had fully made them known to such as were little acquainted with the more ancient sources. But even if we could suppose them unknown to the lawyers of the Convention, they are none the less applicable in determining the true meaning of the Constitution.
The conclusion is explicit. Clearly and indisputably, in England, the country of the Common Law, a claim for a fugitive slave was "a suit at Common Law," recognized "among its old and settled proceedings." To question this, in the face of authentic principles and precedents, is preposterous. As well might it be questioned, that a writ of replevin for a horse, or a writ of right for land, was "a suit at Common Law." It follows, then, that this technical term of the Constitution, read in the illumination of the Common Law, naturally and necessarily embraces proceedings for the recovery of fugitive slaves, if any such be instituted or allowed under the Constitution. And thus, by the letter of the Constitution, in harmony with the requirements of the Common Law, all such persons, when claimed by their masters, are entitled to Trial by Jury.
Such, Sir, is the argument, briefly uttered, against the constitutionality of the Slave Act. Much more I might say on this matter; much more on the two chief grounds of objection which I have occupied. But I am admonished to hasten on.
Opposing this Act as doubly unconstitutional from the want of power in Congress and from the denial of Trial by Jury, I find myself again encouraged by the example of our Revolutionary Fathers, in a case which is a landmark of history. The parallel is important and complete. In 1765, the British Parliament, by a notorious statute, attempted to draw money from the Colonies through a stamp tax, while the determination of certain questions of forfeiture under the statute was delegated, not to the Courts of Common Law, but to Courts of Admiralty without a jury. The Stamp Act, now execrated by all lovers of Liberty, had this extent and no more. Its passage was the signal for a general flame of opposition and indignation throughout the Colonies. It was denounced as contrary to the British Constitution, on two principal grounds: first, as a usurpation by Parliament of powers not belonging to it, and an infraction of rights secured to the Colonies; and, secondly, as a denial of Trial by Jury in certain cases of property.