Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-03-18

That ''" that h. supported in il By high authority
''"cc tnrn The Madison Papers had been published
ana IN them IL had found full authority for tie ground
iaken That authority is this: "NIr. Butler and air
rmekney moved I" require fugitive slaves and ser.
wants tn be delivered, up like crminals'
AT W Iison: TINS aroud obiige Tie E1ccniire of The
S"fe TO do II At r"L!ic sr2ensc"
'.a'' a@fF""a s"'r M more propritty in tic pnbiic
Sf'-t"g ""a S"rreaGcrfa" siarc scrrsai tim n
iarSc.'
!. m,st be borne in mind that this language was held
IN The Contention Which framed the Constitution: and
before The law Of 7'i passed, which imposed the
nHg "i s"frrh'f'ng tnsiyes from Justice, upon the
Executives ii the Satcs IN express lerns NeycrLe.
less Mr. Wilson aud Mr. Sherman. rewarded !, n SET
tied matter that fugtvrs from Justice were ia be sur
rendered By the Executive at pubic cxpense: and
hence they objected that fugitive slaves should BE sur
rendered IN the same And il was for this reason
that distinct clause introduced into the Cops,,tu
tion providing for the delivery Of fugitive slaves
Mr.. BAYLY sure he need not 70 into any nrru
ment to she@, that the duty of surrenGering fugves
from justice would be most conveniently discharged
by the Executive. That such is the case was obvious
enough. But lie took higher ground, and insisted that
il would be- highly Objectionable 10 coni:dc it To any
other person than 10 one responsible the State whose
citizen was 10 be surrendered There power
which should be guarded, than that osur.cndcr-
ing citizen To be taken INTO foreign jurisdiction t. be
tried for the commission al supposed offence. Not
only the liberty of the citizen but the character of the
State required il, No Stale could, strictly speaking
be considered free whose citizens could be taken out OF
her territory without her concurrence to be- carried
abroad Tor criminal prosecution. Aud although he ad.
United that IN cases, no Stale could refuse to
surrender her .';zrn tn@tye from Justice with
out becoming implicated III his guilt: yet there were
others in which she could not comply with such de-
mand, without disrcgarl;ng her duty OF protecting
han, an participating III The persecution and "rpres-
son. to which h. might he hccted There .isrs
in which State should and IN winch no free State
would, surrender lis citizen fugitive from justice.
Where The offence created by tyrannical law,
where the mode of trial 10 ha Inhunauc or in
qusi;oriai, such surrender should be made. Bat II
deciding This question The State would dr. It under tho
highest responsibility il State improperly refused
TO surrender fugitive from justice, would become
parlic paior in his guilt aud give just Of war.
But the liberty and protection Of the citizen required
that the tribunal 10 decide upon his surrender should
be responsible to the State Of which he was mem
her and possess feelings and sympathics with
her citizens.
He would descend from this distract view Of the sub
ject TO practical one. Under our Constitution,
"a person rharafd in any State with treason, elony,
other crime who shall flee from Justice and br found IN
another Stale shall demand Of the Executive aG-
thorIty Of the State from Which he fled, b. delivered mp
10 be removed 10 the State having jurisdiction 81 the
crime X would be seen that the guilt innoccacc
81 the person charged is not raised upon such de-
mand. II he be property charged with any crime,
that IS enough; and take the ground IN tins
contest, and II sustained BY The racs' learn
I'd ur,s;s even Of N"w York, that that is crime
which any State chcases 10 make such. We have also
taken the ground, and IN This too sustained rs
the same learned authority, that whether the offence
charged ought or ought mol 10 have been matte crime,
is not question 10 be decided hy the tribunal upon
whom the demand Tor surrender IS 10 DC made.
TINS is the view al The courts Of New York. Of her
most learned lGrist Chancellor Kent and OF Justice
Story.
THIS being the construction Of the Constitution, Mr.
T. was clear that The tribunal upon whom the demand
for the nder Of iugvcs from justice I" be made
should br one, which III some cases might Lake the re-
spnnsbilitv Of refusing Ia comply even when the re-
QUESTION was formally made. No other tribunal could
be such one, than tribunal whose iunc;lonary
solely responsible 10 the State.
Ii would he impossible for hun 10 find stronger
10 illustrate his views upon this point than was ford
ed BY the law OF New York Of the 9th o May, lci0
the provisions of winch were discussed IN the report Of
the Select Committee And he selected that law tor
illustrations because he thought il clear that IL
passed by the Legislature Of New York with vcw Of
crcumventinn IN this contest, and ct applying To
US, in case in which would not submit our own
principles assumed III this controversy. The 9Th Sec
ton of that law is III these words:
as. If the finding Of The jury be against the claimant
of the matters submitted 10 tiom the person so
claimed as fugitive shall be forthwith set at liberty,
and shall never thereafter he molcscd upon the same
claim and any person who shall thereafter arrest. de-
tain or proceed in manner 10 retakc SUCH alleged
fugitive upon the clam, Or shall BY virtue OF the
same claim remove such alleged fugitive out ii this
State, under process "r proceeding whatever, sGi
be deemed guilty Of kidnappnr; and upon conviction
shall he punished by imprisonment IN lie State PRISON
moi exceeding ten years.
Suppose citizen Of Virginia under the law Of Con-
rress oil the 2h Of Feb, 1888. should obtain certificate
from Judge Of the Federal Court authorizing the re-
unva Of his runaway slave 10 tins STATE: suppose the
slave rs he nav DO under the law Of " York, should
sue out hs haLe1s coJpa and upon the trial should get
the finding of an abolition jury III his favor; and sup
pose the master should refuse 10 he re-
s,rai:ed br this unconstitutional proceeding ana should
remove his slave 10 this State hy virtue oil the proceed
nr of the Federal Judge.-or suppose, what would
more likely be the case that as soon as the master
should seize his fugitive slave with the view OF proceed
nr under tie law of Congress, this hsJtoS corpus
should be issued and The slave dscharged and suppose
thereafter the master should take him before the Fede-
raj Judre and have awarded TO him process for the
removal of the slave, and under should actually re-
move hun: By the law 10 which have referred, he
would be guilty Of kidnapping, aud be Liable 10 be pun
shed by Imprisonment in the State prison Tor ten years
Sunpose in such rs have pn a demand should
be made by the Governor of New York Tor the surren
der ola citizen OF this State 10 be tried by New DIRK
Abotonists: ought The Governor Of Virginia 10 sur
render HIM; Surely no here would say lie ought
IN do So In such he ought To take The respon-
siLiEty of refusing 10 comply with the law and IN
i, he would be sustained by every true heart IN the
sucb case he could take such responsibility with
immunity He would be responsible only TO the State
10 prevent VI sc citizens from oppression he had
ir,erposed The tribunal TO which IL would he res.
nonse would be one, that would sympathlse with him
in III, views and parake with han IN his feelings Bnt
snch would not be the with Federal Judge. lie
owes his appointment TO the General Government-
He need not necessarily be citizen OF the State
whose people would be interested in tie matter lie
would lie responsible 10 tribunal over whose dclbe-
r,tions the very State into collision with which we
MICH, be thrown would have powerful influence
JIe could no, and would not take the responsibility OF
disregardng the law 49,,
Let il not be said, that in admitting that there are
cases where Governor might refuse TO deliver up
fuptve, Isurrender the contest do not object tha'
Governor Seward took the responsibility OF refusing'o
surrender but object that he has taken II IN an 'n-
nropcr case. lie has taken it in one IN winch lhefe
was no occasion for his doing it. And he did with
view as we charge not Of protecting The citizens oil ms
STATE from oppression and persecution, but Of conca-
ting orr enemies, and the worst enem"5 o. VIEW
York too because the worst enemIrs ct the Union Oh
Ina states These felons had violated our laws, de-
beraely and voluntarily not in indicating any righ,