C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874.

[146]

‘This would give the Judge the sole power of deciding the right of property the master claims in his slaves, instead of trying that right by a jury, as prescribed by the Constitution. He would be judge of matters of law and matters of fact; clothed with all the powers of a court. Such a principle is unknown in your system of jurisprudence. Your Constitution has forbid it. It preserves the right of Trial by Jury in all cases where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars.’—(Debates in National Intelligencer, June 15, 1818.)

But this provision has been repeatedly discussed by the Supreme Court, so that its meaning is not open to doubt. Three conditions are necessary. First, the proceedings must be ‘a suit;’ secondly, ‘at common law;’ and thirdly, ‘where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars.’ In every such case ‘the right of Trial by Jury shall be preserved.’ The decisions of the Supreme Court expressly touch each of these points.

First. In the case of Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton, 407), the Court say: ‘What is a suit? We understand it to be the prosecution of some claim, demand or request.’ Of course, then, the ‘claim’ for a fugitive must be ‘a suit.’

Secondly. In the case of Parsons v. Bedford (3 Peters, 456), while considering this very clause, the Court say: By common law is meant not merely suits which the common law recognized among its old and settled proceeding, but suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined. In a just sense, the Amendment may well be construed to embrace all suits, which are not of Equity or Admiralty jurisdiction, whatever may be the peculiar form which they may assume to settle legal rights. Now, since the claim for a fugitive is not a suit in Equity or Admiralty, but a suit to settle what are called legal rights, it must, of course, be ‘a suit at common law.’ Thirdly. In the case of Lee v. Lee (8 Peters, 44), on a question whether ‘the value in controversy’ was ‘one thousand dollars and upwards,’ it was objected that the appellants, who were petitioners for Freedom, were not of the value of one thousand dollars. But the Court said: ‘The matter in dispute is the Freedom of the petitioners. This is not susceptible of pecuniary valuation. No doubt is entertained of the jurisdiction of the Court.’ Of course, then, since liberty is above price, the claim to any fugitive always and necessarily presumes that ‘the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars.’ By these successive steps, sustained by decisions of the highest tribunal, it appears, as in a diagram, that the right of Trial by Jury is secured to the fugitive from service.