Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-03-15

| laws thereof, shall escape into any other OF the
said States or Territory the person TO whom such
service or labor may be due, his agent or Attorney,
is hereby empowered, to seize or arrest such fug-
tive from labor and to take him or her before any
Judge of the Circuit or District Courts Of the UNI
ted States, residing or being within the State, or
before dny magistrate of county, ely or o,On corpo-
rdte, wherein such seizure arrest shall be made
and upon proof to the satisfaction OF such Judge or
magistrate either by oral testimony or affidavit ia
ken BEFORE and certified by any magistrate of any
such State or Territory, that the person so seized
or arrested, doth, under the laws of the State or
Territory from which he or she fled, owe service
or labor to the person claiming him or her, 1t shall
be the duty of such Judge or magistrate, to give
q certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent
attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for re-
moving the said fugitive from labor to the State or
| Territory from which he she fled"
BY the terms Of this act no duty is imposed or
attempted to be imposed upon any person in the
several States, to accept or execute any agency,
to act as attorney of the claimant nor is any ox
ecutve officer other person required or authoris-
Ell to seize, arrest, detlin remove the fugitive,
! or aid assist in 50 doing In this respect they
are as free to yield to their own convictions OF duty,
and to obey the laws of their own Siaes as before
| the passage Of that act The States are left with
full power to pass laws regulating the conduct and
actions of its own citizens, within its own limits,
! while the General Government are armed with am
| pie authority to enact and execute, by its own
agents, all laws not infringing the national consti
tuton and necessary for the exercise Of its legiti
| mate powers.
Congress, by the act of 1893, have conferred the
power, and imposed the duty upon the United States
| Courts to grant certificates of ownership to the
claimants Of fugitive slaves but the Committee
are clearly of opinion that Congress had not the
power to impose that duty upon the State magis
trates or indeed, to compel any other State officer
to exercise any power properly belonging to the
| National Government.
This view of the subject is coroborated by the
language Of the Supreme Court of the United States
in the case of prigg u.s. the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, in the 18th volume Of Peters Re-
ports, page Ga.
In giving their Judgment the court say, the
State Legislature may be entirely silent the
whole subject (of fugitive siavcs) and its ordinary
remedial process framed with different views, and
objects and this may be unocently well as de-
signedly done, since every State is perfectly com
peten and has the exclusive right to prescribe the
remedies in It's own judicial tribunals, to limit the
time as well as mode of redress and 10 deny juris-
dciion Orcr cases ,chich is oCn policy and is ocn
institutions either prohibit or discoW!endnce."
And again ut page Gl5, the court say, "the clause
'but he (the snve) SltHN be delivered up claim Of
the party 10 rhom such seruce labor rldy be due
is found in the National Constitution, and not in
that of any State 1t does not point out any State
functonaries any State action to carry its pro-
visions into effect. The States cannot therefore
be compelled to enforce them"
If therefore the States cannot be compelled to
deliver up fugitive slaves by law of Congress, it
is difficult to perceive how State magistrate may
be compelled to do so by the same law. If Con-
gress in the supposed, have the power to COM
pei, and to impose upon the State magistrates, the
dHty to grant certificates of ownership impose
upon them the exercise of powers and iurisdic-
tons unknown repugnant TO the State laws, it
would follow that the courts of the States, created
for the administration of their own laws, may be
compelled by Congress to the performance of du-
ties wholly inconsistent with, and destructive of,
the laws and institutions of the States. Two iurs-
dictions might thus be created and vested in the
same courts or magistrates deriving their authority
from different sources, exercising equal and con-
Trajectory powers, and mutually destructive of each
other Thus the magistrate, confessedy bound by
the laws OF his State is yet bound to act under the
laws of the General Government how repugnant
soever these may be to the laws of the State.
This absurd conclusion is the legitimate result of
the premises that Congress can impose the duty up
on State magistrates to administer the laws of the
General Government.
The laws of Congress therefore ought to be ad-
ministered by the courts Of the United States, by
the aid of marshas, and such other officers Con-
gress may appoint and those of the States by their
own tribunals and officers.
That State laws may authorize State magistrates
to act in aid of n constitutional law of Congress,
may perhaps be admitted, but it is clear that the
UluV WOHlDll magistrates lIOnl 50 uO-
ing. In the language of the court before quoted,
"evcry State is perfectly competent and has the
exclusive right to deny jurisdiction which
its own policy and its own institutions either prohb-
it or dscountenance."
And on page GU of the same book, the court OBJ
serve, GAS to the authority conferred upon State
magistrates by the act of Congress of l793 while
Il difference of opinion has existed, and may still
exist on the point in different States whether State
magistrates are bound to act under it, none is
terained by this court, that the State magistrates
may if they choose exercise that authority, unless
prohibited by State legislation"
Upon these authorities, and upon the reason of
the case the Committee have no reasonable doubt
, of the following propositions
LIST. That Congress cannot compel State magis-
trate to execute a law of the General Government.
3D. That the States have full power to prohibit
/, their magistrates from doing.
Sd. That the States have full power to prohibit
their executive officers, and their citizens from aid
ing in the execution Of the law of Congress of 1898.
By law of this State passed Doth October, 1910,
it is provided, 81 that whenever an alledged fugitive
from service or labor to which he is held under
the laws Of other States, shall have escaped into
this State, the claim to such alledged fugitive, his
identity, and the fact of his having escaped from
another State of the United States into this State,
shall be determined by jury"
A similar section has been decided TO be uncon-
sttutional and void by the before mentioned.
BY the eth section, " no Judge other officer Of
this State shall grant issue any certificate or 9th
or process for the removal from this State of any
fugitive or of any person claimed as fugitive from
service or labor, otherwise than in pursuance OF
the provisions of this act and every such judge OF
other officer who shall grant issue any such GER
tfcate or other process except in the manner pres
a cribed in and by this act shall be deemed guilty
0 of misdemeanor and liable to punishment there
f for"
r The prohibition in this section is not sufficiently
: extensive and the punishment is too uncertain
BY the 10th section, "every person who shall
cithoat The authority of idio, iorcibly remove or at
tempt to remove from this State any fugitive from
. service or labor or any person who is claimed as
such fugitive shall forfeit the of five hundred
dollars to the party Oggreved and be deemed guilty
of the crime of Kidnapping" &c.
This section does not prohibit the citizens of this