On the one side is a question of property; on the other side is the vital question of Human Freedom in its most transcendent form,--not merely Freedom for a day or a year, but for life, and the freedom of generations that shall succeed so long as Slavery endures. Whether viewed as a question of property or a question of Human Freedom, the requirement of the Constitution is equally explicit, and it becomes more explicit as we examine its history. It is well known, that, at the close of the National Convention, Elbridge Gerry refused to sign the Constitution, because, among other things, it sanctioned the establishment of “a tribunal _without juries_,--a Star-Chamber as to civil cases.”[360] Many united in this opposition, and on the recommendation of the First Congress an additional safeguard was added in the following words: “In _suits at Common Law_, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, _the right of trial by jury shall be preserved_.” Words cannot be more positive. Three conditions, according to this Amendment, are necessary. _First_, there must be “a suit.” But the Supreme Court, in the case of _Cohens_ v. _Virginia_, have defined a suit to be “the prosecution, or pursuit, of some _claim_, demand, or request,”[361]--thus affirming that the “claim” for a fugitive is “a suit.” _Secondly_, there must be a suit “at Common Law.” But here again the Supreme Court, in the case of _Parsons_ v. _Bedford_, while considering this very clause, has declared that “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_”;[362] and clearly, since the claim for a fugitive is not a suit in Equity or Admiralty, but a suit to settle what are culled “legal rights,” it must, of course, be “a suit at Common Law.” _Thirdly_, the value in controversy must “exceed twenty dollars.” But here again the Supreme Court, in the case of _Lee_ v. _Lee_, on a question as to jurisdiction, founded on “the value in controversy,” has declared that the freedom of the petitioners, which was the matter in dispute, was “not susceptible of a pecuniary valuation,”[363]--showing, that, since Liberty is above price, the claim to a fugitive always necessarily presumes that “the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars.” Thus, by a series of separate decisions of the Supreme Court on the three points involved in the interpretation of this clause, it is clear beyond question that the claim to a fugitive is, first, “a suit,”--secondly, “at Common Law,”--thirdly, “where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars”: so that trial by jury is expressly secured.