Weekly national intelligencer., 1848-04-15

therein be discharged from such service or labor but shall
be delivered up on claim Of the party TO whom such service
Judge Story, just who the boast and glory OF the
gentiemans own State in commenting this clause OF the
constitution observed that contemplated summary mnsle-
rial proceeding in conformity with the rules of the conn
mon aw That commentator laid emphasis the express
sion delivered up the claim OF the party to whom Sc
And SO said the United States Supreme Court In 1898 Cor
gess had passed law TO carry out this constitutional provi-
sion and that law made the duty the State
70 assist in the surrender OF such fugiiives
Mr.. ASHMUN Will you show me the law which makes
any such requirement:
Mr.. BAYLY Yes will Hand me the volume of he
Laws Of the United States and win show it, 1
Mr. b. said that the Constitution Of the United States de-
cared hat mat constitution and the laws passed pursuance
of it, should be the supreme law Of the land Tie cons,
tonay OF the law of 1893 before the Supreme CONT
in the of Spgg against the Commonwealth of Pennsv
yanai and the members of the court with single dissent
ing voice. pronounced to be in accordance with the cos
tuition, and therefore the law Of the land Yet the State m
Massachusetts, with this doctrine taught nv her own great NJ
rist and this decision Of the Of last resort staring
her IN the face, set al nough this supreme law the land by
law OF her own law that designed She had done
more she had extended the right Of trial by jury these f-
gves she had also authorized negroes upon iues ac
codng 10 the gentleman who had Just spoken and thus the
case OF runaway negro might before jury Of negroes
who might themselves have beer runaways) for trial II was
idle to tell Mr. b. that this important clause of the constit
ona clause which had been made indispensable cond
ton by the Southern States before they would sanction tho
constitutions had not been nued by the State Massachu
here and that his State willing stand by the cons
tuition twas Did public sentiment there make the
enforcement Of tho rights of stakeholder impossible
Mr.. GIDDINGS here asked leave Of Mr.. b. to make an
explanation
Mr.. BAYLY having assented--
Mr.. GIDDlNGS said he would state the point as it existed
He understood the gentleman from Virginia (M BArLr)
that the United States law of 1893 made the duty of
State officers to arrest fugitive slave in his ar
rest He called on the gentleman show in what part of
that law any such provision was contained the gene-
exIo ,Iolo.,a -.
Mr.. G. ready to acknowledge that he had made some
progress in knowledge to-day.
Mr.. BAYLY said it of course impossible for him TO
stop examine the details of law Could he possibly
have anticipated that such point would be made he would
have examined tue law beforehand.
Mr.. McLANE explained that he understood the deci-
sion of the Supreme Court in regard the Of 1793 the
Supreme Court bad decided that the clause in the constitution
which provided for the ugyes from labor executed
itself far the fugitive could be arrested without illegal
voence but such remedy would be very insufficient the
Court further decided that Congress bound provide e
gsave remedy and that this legislative power Of Congress
erIsipe and that State could interfere qualify
restrain The remedy provided by the of 1893 the mags
trate named in that act might they pleased the
law and State legislation nterfered TO forbid hem such e
gislaion unconstitutional The act Of Massachusetts re-
fusng the Of her jails attempt indirectly to re-
strain the remedy provided by the of l793 and in that
spirit it unconstitutional.
Mr. GIDDINGS wished this clearly understood be-
important point. Knowing the legal
of the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.. BAYLr and the
dor of his desire TO have established according his
views, Mr. q. had looked into it with anxious desire
know whether the gentleman right himself and he
would now point out the result Of that examination.
But he must begin by going back Of the law of 793 He
would all the way back the adoption OF the constitution
and give historical detail Of the action both of the Conven
ton and Of Congress this subject well the decisions of
the Supreme Court and heegsaon Of the States Inthe Con-
ventona member from South Carolina offered amendment
the reported daught of the constitution clause declaring
that the free States should fugitive slave coming with
in their limits in the same manner they would fugitive
from Justice Whereupon member from Pennsy (Mr.
Wlson) instantly and objected the adoption Of the
amendment because would involve the people of the free
States in the Of slaves, that in the expense Of il
and be followed the side by gentleman from
Conneccut and the result was that the amendment
jeced without a division.
The rejection bad been put upon the ground that il would
involve the people Of the Tree States in the aresng of slaves
And Mr.. G. would say that the intention Of the people in thus
refusing be laid under any such obligation bad been carried
outby the Supreme Court The doctrine Of the Court
that the people of the free States could not egsste either
aid the Of slaves hinder that arrest They had
thing TO do in the matter The soil Of the free States
raceground for the slave and his and the
Governments those States interfere between them
They neither 10 surrender up the slave prevent his
catching him if he could The be suf-
fered and catch his slave he could The law
Of l793caued that principles il did not make it the duty Of
the free States TO aid the master in aesng his slave There
legal process by which to arrest fugitive slave.
When the overlook and seized him without pro-
cess then the law made the duty OF the State magistrate 70
give him certificate Of the fact and far the Court pro-
nounced the law to be unconstitutional.
Mr. VINTON said he understood the decision, made
no distinction between avehodng States and States
slaveholding State could fugitive whether il
free State or State under the law Of the United
States.
Mr.. GIDDINGS. Certainly the Court made dstinc-
ton The law left the master arrest his save and
then the magistrate commenced his action but the Court pro-
nounced this TO be unconstitutional.
MI BAYLY said that the interruption Of the gentleman
had given him time examine the law and he mis-
taken He had said, and he repeated with the law before
him. which he thanked the gentleman from Ohio for handing
to him. that the law Of 1893 made Il the duty Of State off,
GERS To assis-tha his staement-in removal by the
his agent attorney Of his fugitive slave. II did
in express As he bad been conradced that point
he desired to read the section:
'Sec. s. find be further enacted That when person held
TO labor in any othe United States either Of terri
tories northwest south of the river Ohio under the
laws thereof should escape into any other OF the said States
Territory the person to whom such labor service be
DUE his agent attorney is hereby empowered 10 seize
such fugitive from labor and take him her before
any Judge the circuit district the United Saes
residing being within the State before magistrate Of
a county, city, corporate where slch seizure es.
should 6emade and upon rOcf 10 e e spc Judge
mdgstafe, either by oral testimony affidavit taken be-
fore and certified by magistrate of any such State Terri
tory that the person seized arrested DOTH under the laws
labor the person claiming him her. II should be
the duty Of such Judge mag give certificate there
Of such claimant his agent attorney, which should be
sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labor 70
the State Territory from which he or she fled"
Al. fs