Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-04-28

/ seH, ana the Law Of 1898, passed in pursuanc.
thereof in relation to fugitves from usiee. aud u
g,nve slaves. by Article All, Section 20, Is pro
s'oed. "A person charged in any State with trea'
son. felony, or other crime who shall dee from JUS
uee, and be found in another State, shall, on de-
msnd OF the Executive authority Of the State IRON
which he fled. be delivered upt be removed TO the
State having jurisdiction OF the crime"
regard this section containing an express
grant OF power by the States the Federal Gov
ernment TO provide for the surrender Of fugtives
from justice, and by this section the States are in
hioited from the exercise Of any control over the
matter, except 50 far the Congress OF the United
states may authorize the or confer the pow CT
OF surrendering fugitives from justice, upon State
omcers The Constitution does not provide tina,
ugitives from justice shall be delivered BY, but 10 the
executive authority, &c; its language Is, "Shail on
demand OF the Executive authority OF the State
from which he fed, be delivered up" Whilst,
therefore, the Constitution does expressly declare
ION what authority" the demand is TO be made, viz:
ION the executive authority" 1t does not in terms
confer the right to deliver up" fug,ives from JUS
ticc, upon the Executive authority of State to
which such fugitives shall flee. l humbly conceive
therefore, that Is perfectly compelentior Congress
10 select It's own agents, 10 carry mo effect this
delegated power.
And It must be remembered, that the right 10
deliver up" tugitiSes from justice, conferred
upon the Executives OF the States, not by the Con
vention which framed the Constitution, as some
gentlemen suppose, but by law of Congress, pass.
why Congress may not change the law Of 1898. and
make the duty of Federal instead of State officers
10 deliver up" fugitives from justice. Ii will be
perceived that the demand is unqualified and Pc
femptory:-"lie shall on demand OF the Executive
authority OF the State from which he fed be deliver
ed up" Nov, If the Federal Government possesses
no control whatever over State officers, can the
Executive authority OF one Stale compel the Exc
cutve authority Of another State, to "Jeliver up"
iusilives from justice, as we have witnessed in the
re nj nt -.
johnson. Edward Smith, and Isaac Gansey, is it
not manifest that this constitutional pnoviscn above
quoted, may be again tisregarded and rendered nu
gatory and of effect, unless the law OF 1898, be
SO altered as to insure compliance with its requi
sironsl TINS can be dOne in my opinion, by a.
king It the duty OF Federal 6fficers 10 deliver up
fusiuves from justice, on a proper demand-who
can be made TO scharge any duty that may de-
yolve upon them.
The act of 1898 was passed under conviction
thai the Executive authorities of the States would
comply with It's provisions when fugitive was pro
perry demanded for treason, felony, or other
crlme;" and IN most cases this has been done: the
course OF New York, however, aomonishes us OF the
proprieiy OF a change in the law. II what have
urged oe Just and tar Interpretation OF this clause
OF the Constitution, then Congress has the power 10
authorlzs federal officer 10 surrender fugiIyes
{. ON Justice.
Mr.. Speaker, as intimately connected with the
subject We have been discussing. let us now briefly
the Federal Constitution, which relates 10 the sur
render OF fugitive slaves and contrast this with the
clause relating to the surrender OF fugiIives from
Justice.
3rd clause, % OF the Alb ariice:--"No person
held 10 service labour IN one State, under the
laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in conse-
quence OF any law regulation therein, be dschars-
ed from such service labouT, but snail he deliver
ed up on claim OF the party TO whom such service
or abour may be due" Thus il appears that the
-, -.
tyes from dsIice and runaway slaves is this:-The
former shall on the demand OF the Executive au-
tnority oil the State from which he fled, be deliver
ed ups" whereas the latter ''shal! be delivered IN
on Claim OF the party 10 whom such service or la
bour may be due.' In other words State authori-
ties must make the demand for fusIives from JUS
tice, and the owner for runaway slaves. The rea-
son assigned IN the Convention 10 The distinction az
stated in "Mr. Madison's reports OF the Debates in
the Federal Convention" was this: Ii "fustves
slaves, and servants, were to be delivered up like
CRIMINALS" that "thls would oblise the Executive
OF the States 10 do it public expense" Mr. Bat.
teo afterwards Withdrew his proposition, and the
clause, which have quoted above, was agreed to.
The Constitution, however, makes no distinction
as to the power TO 'deiver up" fugtlves from JUS
ice and runaway slaves, ana yet The act OF 1898
authorizes the demand for fugitive slaves to be
made either before "Any Judge Of the Circuit or
District Courts OF the u, States, before any ma
glstraIe." And Gov. GIlmer, in his special message
| TO this Legislature, upon the N. York question
says: 1T IS worthy OF remark that the words ".ha
| be delivered up,r are used in both clauses Of the
Constitution IN reference to fusitves from Justice or
| runaway slaves. As the Constitution thus clearly
provides for the surrender IN both cases. and does
not point out the Piode IN which it shall be made in
either, II cannot be doubted that Congress ma
adopt such means will be efectual to carry their
power into effect"
Ii, then, 1t be true, as some gentlemen contend
that Congress have no power under the Constitu-
| ton, TO change the Law OF 1893 so as TO make IL
the duty OF Federal Judge other officer, TO sur
render fugtIves from justice, then the Law of I7s3
which authorizes "JHdge OF the Circuit or DIS.
trcI Courts OF the United States" to surrender fu-
sitIve slaves, must be unconstitutonsl-a PROPOSE
ton presume, that no Southern gentleman is pre.
pared TO admit.
But it is objected that Federal officer nigh,
surrender fugitive from justice in cases where he
ought not and where the Governor of a State
would not. For instance, IL might be said that
II man were TO attempt TO rescue his slave
IN New York, he could be demanded as a fu-
sltVe from justice, under her laws, and tried for
kidnapping; IN which event, the man so de.
manded, ought not TO be surrendered, and the Ex-
ecutive OF State could and ought to refuse
whereas a Federal officer could be forced 10 sur.
render him. beg leave to dissent from such opin-
ions, Tor | maintain thai even 10 the extreme case
supposed, and Tor VIC alton Of that most iniuuiious
and unconstitutional law, if the Governor OF New
York was to demand fugitives from Justice, il
would be the duty Of the Executive OF the State TO
which they led, TO surrender the same in obeui.
ence TO the Constitution, and the law of 1893 ms
sed in pursuance thereof TO be tried by Jury nc.
cording TO the laws Of New York. and # conviction
ensued, Application could be made to the Fedora
Court and relief obtained.
But why should we dstrust Federal officer 10
perform this serycel a refusal to surrender IN the
case supposed, would be to sanction the course of
Governor Seward, Ofwhich Virginia has complained
and which constitutes the very germ Of this cnntfo
versy. What was the complaint az iinst New Yoik3
Was II not that her Governor refused T. deliver
up" Peter Johnson, Edward Smith and Isaac Gan.
sew, ION the demand" Of the Executive of Virginia
and uPoD the ground that the offence with which
they were charged was not RECON zed BY the laws
of New York; tina: The laws Of New York odd not
admit the principle thai ono person could be the
property Of another" and ihai Zone person could
not be stolen from another" therefore, the off nee
GS not constitute "ielony or other crime" in the
meaning OF the Constitution, and there was no obi
CATION 10 surrender said fIgitiyes. Governor Sc
"nd refused to surrender, because the laws Of Vir-
gina were not recognized or acquesced IN by New
York. Would It be right then for VIrginii TO re-.
fuse to surrender IN like manner, because the laws
OF New York ware unknown to the 1--we OF Vlroi
mar take this TO he the true distinction the Eye
cuiive making the demand may exercise discretion
as to the proprety Of the demand, nd he NAV re.
fuse 10 make the demand; but the Executive on
whom the demand is properly made can exercise no
discretion, but ought To surrender. M there Lc
eTcep IONS to this rule, they are only IN very eH.
IRENE coEss "a which Il Is more y question of migbt
than OF ugbL') IL Is not for the Executive to iudes
OF the consttutonulitY or the-propflety of a Stale
low, the violation Of which Is declared 10 be a
crnne," or whether the offence charged constitutes
he IN he Efafs ~, .s.ls a..