It is not to be supposed, of course, that the law of 1850 was found to be intrinsically less objectionable to abolitionists than the measure it was intended to supplement. On the contrary, it soon proved to be decidedly more objectionable. The features of the first Slave Act that were obnoxious to the Northern people, and had been subjected to examination in the courts, were retained in the second act, where they were associated with a number of new features of such a character that they soon brought the new law into the greatest contempt. While, therefore, the records of the trials of the chief cases arising under the later law are found to contain arguments borrowed from the contentions made in the cases already discussed, it is interesting to note that they afford proof that new arguments were also brought to bear against the act of 1850. As with the first Fugitive Slave Law, so also with its successor, fault was found on account of the absence of any provision for jury trial;[788] the authority of a claimant or his agent to arrest without legal process;[789] the opposition alleged to exist between the law and the Ordinance of 1787;[790] and the power said to be improperly exercised by Congress in legislating upon the subject of fugitive slaves.[791] It is unnecessary to introduce here a study of these points as they presented themselves in the various cases arising, for a discussion of them would lead to no principles of importance other than those discovered in the cases already examined.[792] [788] Sims' case, tried before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, March term, 1851. See 7 _Cushing's Reports_, 310. Miller _vs._ McQuerry, tried before the Circuit Court of the United States, in Ohio, 1853. See 5 _McLean's Reports_, 481-484. _Ex parte_ Simeon Bushnell, etc., tried before the Supreme Court of Ohio, May, 1859. See 9 _Ohio State Reports_, 170. [789] Norris _vs._ Newton et al., tried before the Circuit Court of the United States, in Indiana, May term, 1850. See 5 _McLean's Reports_, 98. _Ex parte_ Simeon Bushnell, etc. See 9 _Ohio State Reports_, 174. United States _vs._ Buck, tried before the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1860. See 8 _American Law Register_, 543. [790] Booth's case, tried before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, June term, 1854. See 3 _Wisconsin Reports_, 3. _Ex parte_ Simeon Bushnell, and _ex parte_ Charles Langston, tried before the Supreme Court of Ohio, May, 1859. See 9 _Ohio State Reports_, 111, 114-117, 124, 186. [791] Sims' case. See 7 _Cushing's Reports_, 290. Booth's case. See 3 _Wisconsin Reports_. [792] For the text of the Slave Laws, see Appendix A, pp. 359-366. In some of the cases that were tried under the act of 1850, however, new questions appeared; and in some, where the questions were perhaps without novelty, the circumstances were such that the cases cannot well be passed over in silence.