Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-02-02


and the opinion Of Edmund Randolph, then Attorney Gene
raj was taken upon it, That Attorney General known Z
the country able lawyer, bad been member oil TN
convention which formed the constitutions and the following
extract from his opinion will show that he understood the
sution il applied to fugives from JUSTICE devolved I'M
duty of delivery upon the Sales:
differ further in discovering the disability OF tr
GINA to deliver up the Offenders 1t has been sometimes han
ced that by delivering up only that the State iron
which the demand shoad appreciation tina
they may be apprehended within its territories But as
State cannot be said deliver I ~
other liberty 10 seize criminai within its limits
the natural and safe Interpretation s that Inc delivery mus
IErtract from The ett,ion Of Edmund Randolph.
Now sir the delivery be made by Virginia State
exercising control the subject to be Delivered and nav
ing power to effect it, The language s "he delivery mus
come from Virginia" clearly indicating he read the con
stuton that Virginia owed this duty, and bound unde
the terms of the constitution, to perform It,
s will submit any lawyer or statesman to examine
these two clauses of the constuton-one requiring that I'll
gves from Justice should be dellvered up, and the Other
reournr that fustives ON labor should be delivered up
and to point to any distinction whatever between them that
would devolve the duty of delivery upon state IN the one
case and that would relieve the State from the duty OF deiy
ey in the other The language in both is the same and
this Government has lust as much right require Of the Elk
ecu,vc of the States that they shall deliver up fugtyes from
labor as TO require the Executive that they shall deliver
fugitives from ustice-jus as much
Sir agree that the Federal Government has power
impose duties of any kind upon the officers Of the State Gov
enments as such and this extent the law OF 1898 was
badly devised But is worthy of remark, that the States
fobddng their officers to execute that law have confined then
prohibition altogether much of the law relates to u
gve slaves leaving unaffected much OF 1t relates to
fugves from abora selfish distinction, indeed, which
will allow the execution of much Of law as benefits them
selves and obds the execution of much Of the law
will benefit others.
say them sir that the true intent of the constitution
to deyoye upon the States Federal duty TO enforce by
their laws within their respective limits both these clauses
Of exadon and that they just as delinquent to honor
and faith in their refusal to enforce the one as they would
be in refusal to enforce the other
Now, Mr.. President what is the actual condition OF this
subject in the nonslaveholdng States have endeavored
far competent to do to show what duties the
constitution deyoyes upon Them But sir, 20 not mean to
aragn hese States have power to do and less dis
position But am bound to point to their legislation, and
to show the existing state of this question will take the
State Of Pennsylvania, not from any feeling Of hostility to-
wards her. but because far the State of Virginia is
cernedthe State which in part represent her-Pennsyl-
vania is the great offender have shown what the spirit
of the people Of Pennsylvania before the constitution was
formed. have to show what it is now, under that consiu-
ton. In 1926 law passed, have said, furnishing
authority to the officers Of the State of Pennsylvania for the
capture and surrender Of fugitive slaves. In l8 that law
repealedrepealed in tOtoso far any aid given
the claimant in the reclamation Of his property and not
peaed only, but it made felonous offence in my officer
of the State Government to execute any of the provisions OF
the federal law upon that subeche provisions OF the law
of 793-under the penalty Of fine and imprisonment at SER
vile labor Sir, the State went further Il made it offence
punishable by fine and imprisonment for the keeper of any
Jail 10 permit fugitive from labor, arrested in the State of
Pennsylvania, to be confined in the Jail.
Now, Mr.. President, what the rights secured by the
constitution the whose slave escapes from his service
into another State Desiring sir to be very accurate upon
this subject have written down what understand to be the
right Of the in the recapture Of fugitive save within
the limits of any and every Stale Of the Union.
Mr. Nj. here read from paper as follows:
The constitution of the United States to the master
the right of property in his slave and to be enjoyed and
exercised the extent, and with the incidents
when the slave to another State which he held
State from which he fed far recapture concerned
He may take him wherever he is found by virtue OF owner
ship and without warrant or other process in law
None has right nterpose between the claimant and the
fugitive inquire whether the slave be HIS whether
he is slave ALL far less modest hinder him in the
capture
He enter peaceaby any enclosure or dwelling where
such slave may be found for the purpose of taking him. and
this without committing trespass.
He may whatever may be necessary affect the
captures without committing thereby breach of the peace
and force be offered by the slave Others he may resist it
extent that be to secure the
These rights this authority incident the rights of
property and the law OF the constitution the owner in
the exercise of them against hostile law of the State to
which the slave may fee, should such law be.
The constitution does confer these rights they
tecedent the constitutions and arise incidents property
under the laws Of the State whence the slave escapes They
have their sanction in the law of the domic
The constitution however, as the supreme law recognises
this right property and carries its obligation and its Incl
DENTS all purposes of reclamaton every State in
the Union and makes the law of the domc 9oad hoe the
law of every State in the Union.
These, understand, s the rights that pertain to the
owner Of slave when he pursues him within the limits Of
-siavehodng Sate-rghts secured to him by the unda
mental law which binds the States together under common
government But of what earthly avail is it to point to such
guaranty whilst the wanting in faith to each Other
when only their citizens forbidden to execute the laws
made in support of the CONSTITUTIONS but legislative bodies
veing with each other defeat it Much, therefore,
depore the occasion which gives it uterance, at this
day. and in this presence yet bound to declare, i'm
partial history will record that the legislation Of the States
referred designed and intended to encourage their people
in depreciation upon the property Of others.
Sir it had been supposed that the days of piracy and Of buc
But what shadow of difference is there
between plunderng the high defiance Of law, and
pundepg your confines under the protection OF law
do the proposition toe strongly for in the degree
Of crime can perceive no difference between ROBBERY BY
force and robbery by fraud if there be- the latter only
carries with the odous feature Of deception and false
hood.
But, sir desiring place the law of this question in the
light may be paoned for citing here the opinions Of
the abIes urss from the very States where these enones
perpetrated under the sanction Of law will read short
paragraph from opinion delivered by the late Judge Bald
win, of the Supreme Court while sitting circuit judge in
the State Of gentleman whose high charac
ter and learning just tribute paid late day by the
distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr CAss, and after
it an extract from an opinion Of Judge Story:
The law Of the land recognises the right OF
hold another in bondage and that right must be protected
from violation As consequence OF this right OF property,
the may keep possession of his slave if he absconds
he may reake him by pursuit into another State and
bind him any other prevent his second
cape he may him the of much force
cessay effect his reclamation he may enter peaceaby
the property into the house Of another taking
nit breach of the peace against third persons But is
breach much force of coercion towards
slave could be retaken without his consent Balyn's
KEEP. DoL l, D. ST.