Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-12-04

lion-thouah recent in its promulgatloh' yet
Old as the instrument itself, was conccdeu
on all hands during the argument before me;
it was c%onteuGed that our statute did not Ia!I
within its destroying influence, because 1t
was only a police regulation, and therefore
lcgitimately within the scope Of State at'AoF-
ity. uc
In Is Peters G25. Judge Story qualities
The decision Of the Supreme Court OF the -
nited States, by saying that they were not 10
be understood in any manner TO doubt or IN
i%erlcre with, the police power belonging 10
the States. in yi7tre of their general sovereign
ity. That police power extends overall SUBJ
irc,s within the territorial limits Of the States
and is distiuguishable from the right and du-
~ secured by the provision Of the Consuid-
ton under consideration.
II becomes therefore material 10 enquire
what is the police power here alluded to, and
does our statute justly and properly fall with
in it's scopei
In Is Peters, the same learned Judge
speaks Of this power as comforting fall iurls-
dicjiou On the States 70 arrest and restrain
runaway slaves, anil remove them from their
borders aud otherwise to secure themselves
against their depradaIions and evil example,
as certainly they may DO i'm cases Of oilers,
yagabouds and p3upcfs. The rights Of the
o" "r.S o. Ie-'i'o slaves axe III 10 Ju9l sense
mi5r,ered with or regulated by sue" a course;
ana III many cases me 'fe'''''"s 'i ms po-
"te power "''',tsI u'2'5 "'H O'''"'''y ''iI
ot'er purposes, Ioi me PIo'',l.9" S"Iely anu
peace o, lno 5'dIe' may 's5e"u'''y P'o",o''
ana ana me Interests OF me owners bu'
such regulations can never De PeliA!'eu 20
interfere WIN OF GoS'Iuc' t"o Jus' II7o'S VI
~ - L u" Cn"rr - aiI anJ
n,r,,.o A., s,,o
In Nov York vs. Milne. II. Petere. Iag.
Mr.. .Jr.,icc p,rbopr. in 1rIiyer;n,r fine onin-
ion Of tho Court. on,Iias his test to deter
mine the nature Of tbe mower. Did il belonr
TO the state before the adoption of the Con-
s,itution! Has il been taken from the states
and riyen to Conrressl Or does il fan with
in that immense mass Of LEGISLATION which
rrobr3ccs every thinr ,nJjbjn iks i~s,rjioyy Of
4 state not Surrendered to the reneraI roy
ar,mcr,l And he noyvcr Then under c,n.id-
Grafton was held to be of That mass because
its Mace of oncration was within the territory
and therefore within the jurisdiction Of the
state: bcrause the prrson on whom il oner-
ates was found within the same territory and
jurisdiction: because the persons for who's,
benefit it was PASSED were the peopIe of t,
state; because the purpose to be attained
was to secure the protection Of that people
and because ,he means used We're just, nalur
! al and appropriate to those ends.
Complaint was made during the argumcu
: that this police power was exceedingly vague
/, uncertain and undefnable, and hence, | sup
= pose, an inference was to he deducod tia
=, | ought to regard the claim Of power with lii
f tie favor at least. In the very nature Q
things it must be difficult, in few, or perhap
in many words, TO define the power; for
. comprchcnds an immense mass of Legislation
f inspection laws, quarantine laws, healtl
laws, internal commerce, roads, ferries, &c.
&c.
5 Yet, immense as is this mass, and variou.
t as are the interests embraced in and aflccIo,