Now, regarding the question as one of Property, or of Personal Liberty, in either alternative the Trial by Jury is secured. For this position authority is ample. In the debate on the Fugitive Slave Bill of 1817-18, a Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Smith, anxious for the asserted right of property, objected, on this very floor, to a reference of the question, under the writ of Habeas Corpus, to a judge without a jury. Speaking solely for Property, these were his words. "This would give a judge the sole power of deciding _the right of property the master claims in his slave, 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 jury as well as 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."[171] [171] Annals of Congress, 15th Cong. 1st Sess., March 6, 1818, col. 232. 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 proceeding 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." Judgments of the Supreme Court cover 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 or pursuit 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 et al._ (3 Peters, 447), while considering this very clause, the Court say: "By _Common Law_ the framers of the Constitution meant ... not merely suits which the Common Law recognized among its old and settled proceedings, 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 and 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 be a "suit at Common Law."