Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-05-03
VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK.

- "eo Just osen teeo, ms OBJECT was 10 present
70 the House and to the county the views which
no entertained both as il regarded the wrong which
we hed sustained at the hands Of the Governor O,
New York, rs we'll as the remedy which he con.
seNea TO be proper under all the circumstances o
the case He had never doubted. from the fs,t tim,
tho subject had been brought 10 his eon.id,r,,ion
mat the only true and constitutional remedy 10 &c
apply to the Congress Of the United States Tor IN,
purpose Of amending the law both in relation &C
'usiuve slaves, rs we'll as that portion Of il which
re;ated To tusitves from justice. What, he wouic
ask, was the origin OF this controversy1 He con
tended that grew entirely out Of the defect OF the
aci passed by Congress in relation to fupves from
justice. The Constitution Of the United States pro-
Woo. mat person charged in any State with tea.
son. ielony or other crime, who shall flee from Justice
and be iourd in another State shall on the demand
OF the Executive authorities Of the State from which
he Ned, be delivered up, to I've removed to the stat,
having Jurisdiction of the crime" For the purpose
OF carrying into effect this provision of the Consii,u
ton OF the United States, the law of I7s3 was pass.
co. That law provides that whenever the Execu
i've authorities Of any State in the Union or Of
eeher OF the Territories North West OF South Yves,
.ne tNer Ohio, shall demand any person as a fu.
gvc rom justice OF the Executive authority of any
such State or Territory to which such person sb,
nave He'd, and shall moreover produce the copv nj
an Indictment found, or ON affidavit made before 1
magistrate OF any State or Territory as aforesaid
charging the person SO demanded with having com.
mtted treason, felony other crime certified as au
thorltative by the Governor or Chief Magistrate OF
The State or Territory IRON W hence the person ~
charged hed, shall be the duty Of the Executive
auhority Of the State TO which such person shall
have fled, TO cause him her to be arres,e and SEE
Sufeo' anu notice oil the arrest to be given TO the
Executive authority making such demand, or TO the
agent OF such authority appointed to receive the f-
gi'ive, 10 be delivered TO such agent when he shall
appear Ii will be perceived, from an inspection of
ne aoove recited law, that the duty Of delivering
up iugiuves from justice, has been devolved on the
Ereeure OF the State, and on Federal agents re-
sPons pie iUr the duties imposed by the act Of Con
gress. Ihe Governor Of State can, in no vav
wnsever' ee responsible for the discharge Of duties
conferred by the law OF Congress Itis true thai in
tnis case, the duty is imposed on the Governor of
New York, as well by his oath to support the Con-
sttut'on as by the words of the law was clear
But then the defect IN the law consisted in ths-tbo
agent TO whom the execution of the law was en,,u.,
ed was not responsible to Congress for the mode in
which he executed the law. He believed that This
was the only instance where The Government of The
onred States had entrusted the exercise Of mpor-
nn' laws 10 oihcers IN no way responsible to them
nc Hhole olmeulty was simply this: Three indi-
vduals, citizens Of the State Of New York. are
charged with stealing negro slave within the iurls
uietion and against the laws OF Virginia. The Go.
vernon OF Virginia demands these Individuals as lu
g'uVes 'om justice, under the act OF Congress be-
fore referred TO. The Executive of New York re-.
fuses to deliver them, Tor reasons which are deemed
not only by the Legislature, but by every dispa..
sionate man, as wholly unsatisfactory. Now he
would ask whether the plain, practical remedy for
,he evil complained OF, was an amendment of the
law oy winch the execution Of the duties enio ned
unoer II might be entrusted 10 responsible agents of
tte Gfne'dI Government and not to irresponsible
executives OF the State Governments To his mind
the subject was free from every doubt and eyery diff
TIsu'ly. de would put II 10 every member of this
House TO soy whe her he believed this dfficuI,v
could ever have arisen had the Jaw been amended
IN the mode designated by the resolutions which he
had the honor to submit He believed that no diff
hcuIiy would or could have occurred Suppose tbi.
auty OF delivering up fugitives from Justice had
o,en vested by the law in the Federal Judges, La
bic at any time 10 impe achment by ConsIess 70,
failure to perform their official duties-Does any
one suppose for moment, that any Judge would
render himself liable 10 impeachment and 10 reno.
val from MS nigh station, by a refusal to discharge
the PAIN nIunctions Of the Law and Constitutes
which he had sworn 10 support2 IL was n,oned
however, by the gentleman from Accomac that the
delivery OF fugtives from justice was an Execute,
anty, and that no law could be enacted by which
ehat duty should be devolved upon the Federal Of
neeIs. IL the argument he correct that the deiye-
ry OF fugitves from Justice cannot Le vested in ,b
edera officers, but must be devolvtd alone on IN.
Executives OF the States, then it followe cd as me-
cessAry consequence, that the delivery OF fugitive
slaves could only be vested IN the Executives OF
the several States. The one duty was as mueh
an Executive duty as the Other Now VIZ,
was the TACT IN relation TO the delivery of f,
glnve slavesl The law of Congress. passed in
lIs3 expressly authorizes the owner of the fugitive
save, or ms agent, TO arrest the slave and to take
MN or her before any Judge Of the Circuit or Dis.
tret Court Of the Unued States. The Law tb.n
PRESERVES the mode Of proceeding for the purpo,.
OF determining whether the slave so seized does owe
service or labour TO the person claiming him or her
according 10 The argument Of tie gentleman from
Accomac, that this law, which has remained unon
The Statute Book fom the year 1893 in fuII farc.
and IN constant operation, must he unconstitution
al But he would ask whether there was anv Thing
IN the clause OF the Constitution which relates 10 fu
su'es from justice, which could afford any founda.
ior the argument that the delivery Of fueitiye
from justice should he vested solely in the Execu |
tives OF the SIa'es2 The words of The Constitutes
are "A person charged IN any State with treason
leony or other crime, who shall flee from Justice
and he found IN another State, shall on demand of
The Executive authority Of the State from which n.
neo, be delivered up, 10 be removed to the State
having jurisdiction OF the crime" IL will be OBJ
served that the Constitution prescrbes that the DE-
nand shall be made by the Executive of the State
rom which he fled but il no where prescribes tba,
,ne dtnp"y OF the fugitive should be made by the
Executive OF the State TO which he NAV have aed
and where he may be found II is clear then tb,,
TINS provision of the Constitution throws no obsta
Gle III the way OF the enactment Of a law as pointed
out by the resolutions. On the contrary thai nro
VISION Oh the Constitution imposes a solemn duty
on lhe congress oil the United States to make any
amendment of the existing Jaw that NAV be neces.
Sary Tor the purpose Of rendering effective this pro
VISION OF the Constitution. The gentleman from
hecomac, contends that even if II were con,t;,,,.
tional thus TO amend the law, that the law would
still be Inefficient. he thinks that the federal JUDGE
would be rs strongly tnctured with the Abolition
excitement as the Executives Of the States and that
these Judges would refuse 10 perform the duty en-
loned by The law-that even If there were nm al |
Tempt to lmpeach the Judge for n refusal TO ner.
form bis duty, that the fell spirit OF fanatcism
would prevent his Impeachment AMI conviction bv
Congress. He would ask, Were the members Of
this House prepared TO believe that Abolition had
made such rghfuI strides that neither the JuJIci
lTy or the Legislature of the country would ner.
iorm lhelr sworn constitutional dutiesl For him. |
sell, whenever he arrived at the conclusion n,
which u seems the gentleman from Accomac has mr.
TiVed that one OF the planest as we'll no one of the
most Important provisions Of the Constitution could
not be executed IN consequence Of the prevalence OF
this spirit OF ianaticism, he for one would be Ore.
pared for dissolution Of the Union. 1.-THE arm.
ment was worth any thing, il was an argument for
The dissolution Of the Union For himself he an |
lertained no such opinions he laboured under M
such npp'ehensonsl he had a confident belief that
Congress would readily amend the laws and an
equally confident belief that the Judiciary would
discharge the duties proposed 10 be conferred opon
hem. But Nseems that the gentleman from Aeco.
mac, has another objection 10 any application N
Congress- be thinks II will lead 10 the discussion of
he Abolition question lie would respectfully ask.
whether this objection he'd been we'll considerable
DO not gentlemen reflect that this whole subject Of
Abolition has been repeatedly before Cono,ess
Tlthn the last five yenrsl Was not the vsbol. |
.ubject discussed upon the resolutions offered bv
Mr. Pinckney Of South Cardinal Was not the !
whole subject, In oil its various aspects discussed
n the yeir 1882 upon the resolutions offered by Mr.
Johnson OF Maryland Has not the subject been |