The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-04-13

1
which had been Just avowed! He then read the words
OF the constitution as follows;
mo person held 10 service labor in State, under
the laws thereof escaping into another, SHALL IN conse
9uence OF any law regulation therein, be discharged
from such service labor, but shall be delivered up on
claim OF the party TO whom such service or labor may De
due"
The most distinguished juris of Massachusetts, lthe
late Judge Story) in his commentary on the constitution
has stated that this clause contempates summary pro-
ceeding according to the rules OF common law and
lays especial emphasis the words, sha be delivered
up on fhe claim of the party to whom such service or
The constitution of the United States, and laws made
in pursuance thereof declared to be the supreme law
Of The land Such was the language OF the constitution
In 1893 Congress passed law carrying out the provi-
sion which he had quoted above, to WIT: that il was the
duty of the magistrate to assist in the surrenderng of
fugitive slaves to their masters. The question of the
constiuonality of that law subsequently, came before
the Supreme Court, and the court decided, with but
single dissenting voice, that the law in pursuance of
the constitution of the United States and per conse-
quence, the supreme law of the land And now was
that the State of Massachusetts, in the face of this law
Of Congress, and this decision of the Supreme Court,
has passed law which does in effect set at nought
a provision Of the constitution OF the United States
The laws of Massachusetts had gone further than
this Unless he was msnformed, the laws of that State
extend the right OF trial by jury to these fugitive slaves
This State has authorized her black citizens to sit u
RES the gentleman tells and might turn out that
question about the rights of such fugitive slave would
be decided by jury composed entirely OF negroes 1t
perfectly idle to deny that this provision of the
stituton not completely nuied by the Massachu
sets statute.
Mr. GIDDINGS, having procured the law of Congress
of l793 now handed the book to the gentleman from
Virginia, with request for him to examine it; but
| Mr. BAYLY said, it was impossible for him to exam
inc the provisions of that law now. lie had not antic
pated the point made.
Mr. McLANE explained that the Supreme Court had
decided that the clause in the constitution which provided
for the of ugitiyes from labor executed ITSELF so
far the arrest could be made without illegal violence
but as such remedy was very insufficient the court de-
cded that Congress was bound to egsate carry
eectually the remedy and that this power of Congress
exclusive. Amy legislation of State to qualify or
restrain the remedy the court said unconstitutional
And nasmuch the court said magistrates might GER
tanly if they pleased execute those provisions of the
law OF 1913 which referred to them, any legislation of
State to forbid such interference was restraint upon the
remedy provided IN the law of 1893. In this it was
Massachusetts passed laws in their spirit
al when those acts refused the of her as to confne
Mr. GIDDINGS stated the point The case was illus
rated by the proceedings of the convention which framed
the constitution In that convention, delegate from
South Carolina offered an amendment to the effect that
the magistrates should arrest mpson, and deliver up
their masters all fugitive slaves, in the that
they are bound to arrest mprson and deliver the flu
Pennsylvania mr. Wilson, Immediately opposed the
amendment and declared his objection be, that would
involve the free States IN very onerous expense and
the amendment was rejected without division This
principle, he said borne out in the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Prgg Us the Common
wealth Of Pennsylvania The constitutional provision
executed ITSELF also did the law of Congress The
people of the free States not to interfere either way
but let the and take his slave he can catch
him, leaving the matter entirely between themselves.
Mr. VINTON intimated that there was no distinction
contemplated between the free and the slave States
Mr. GlDDINGS, Certainly not. But the law of 1898
provided further that when master shall have arrested
his slave, and taken him before magistrate with proper
evidence of his ownership it should be the duty of such
magistrate to give him certificate of ownership The
Supreme Court decided that this provision of the law was
unconstitutional.
Mr. BAYLY then read the law of Congress referred to-
defended the statement which he had before made in
L.. I'd thol
the Supreme Court in the case OF Prgg the Common
wealth of Pennsylvania.
Mr. B. knew perfectly well what that decision was to
which the gentleman had referred Three leading points
were decided The constitutions it decided executed
itself Another point decided was, that Congress had
elusive legislation the subject, with this difference
thai the States could legsate in aid of the act of Con-
gress, but not in contravention of it. Judge Baldwin
gave the opinion that the constitutional provision
ample of itself, and that the law of 1893 unnecessa
ry The constitution gave to the master the right TO 60
and take his slave, in like manner he would his horse
and no legislation was requisite to enforce his right
Four of the judges, including Judge Story decided that
the constitution did not contemplate any legislation on
the subject. Judge Thompson, of New York and Judge
Daniel gave the opinion that Congress could legslate
that the act of 1893 constitutional, and that the
States could make further provisions for carrying the law
of Congress into effect That he believed to be the true
law of the
How, in the face of this decision can Massachusetts
pass law forbddng her citizens and officers from aid
ing in the arrest of fugitive saves' How is the article
of the constitution to be executed without the aid Of the
with posse from his State to arrest the fugitive
Mr. B. adverted to decisions of Judge Story and Judge
Washington support of his views and to show that the
provisions of the law of Massachusetts were nuica-
ton of the constitution and of the law of 1893
Massachusetts had provided, he believed, that the
slave should be entitled to trial by jury New York
and Pennsylvania had done the same. The supreme
court of New York has decided that this law
tutona The State of Massachusetts had virtually null
lifted this clause of the constitution Suppose he to
go Massachusetts, he had been invited to go, and
take with him his servants who necessary TO the
convenience of himself and his family these servants
could be taken away from him, and he would have no
redress Anxious he to visit Massachusetts. this
law OF hers would make him stranger to that State as
long he lived
Mr. B. went on to say that many free States had passed
such law, and he under the impression that New
York had done He had heard it said that the people
of New York would go to war to prevent the mmgra-
ton of negroes into that State That the law of
public opinion in New York. if it not on the statute
book
The State of Ohio, that had more abolition members
this floor than any other, had driven off slaves who
were emancipated in Virginia and sent to Ohio These
blacks bought laad and settled down the free State of
Oho and the people, after getting their money, mobbed
them and compelled them to abandon their lands He al
luded to late member from Ohio [Mr. BRINKERHoFr]
who always clamorous against slavery, and who ad-
mitted that he unwilling to suffer free negroes 10
come into Ohio This their philanthropy and hu-
mainly.
Mr. GIDDINGS said that the act referred to was not
of the State nor the people of Ohio, bat of mob; and
with which the people Of the State had sympathy He
knew that some of his colleagues were of different
opinion.
Mr. FICKLIN asked whether the gentleman from