The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-23

ma. compeen laws prescribe the judicial officers TO in
srorst them define the executive officers who shall assist
In carving these effect and then il stops The
dscision Of the Supreme Court does say that if that
fails you shall put your hands into the national treasury
beg leave to submit to the Senate this inquiry The
constitution Of the United States says that when fug
tive from service escapes into free State he snail not be
deemed free but shall be delivered TO the party 10 whom
such service labor shall be due Suppose had been
proposed in the convention that framed that constitution
to add to il that upon the failure to obtain restitution
Of the slave the owner shall be entitled 10 indemnity out
OF the public treasury, what, think you, would nave
been the fate OF such proposition IN The hauonai con
ventionl hardly believe that there is senator VINO
hears me who will that such proposition would
have been received with favor And shall we go beyond
what they would have prescribed Tor hensees or VIVA,
they prescribed for u.s. wish we had the constitutional
power in some mode this indemnity to persons
who sustain these losses but according TO the provisions
Of the consttuon.n my Judgment, II cannot possibly
be done -
Now, sir, have word to offer upon the subject of
protection against foreign invasion. The argument is
that the protection which the United States bound
give the State is by contract between the United
States and State and therefore that they not bound
indemnify individuals for their losses, Now sir, have
some dfhculty myself in drawing the distinction between
State and the people soho compose the State have
idea Of the existence of State but aggregate body
Of citizens. contract between the United States and
State 10 contract between the United States and the c
zsns OF the Staeno the official agents OF the State There
y nothing. therefore, in this argument which would
aid the proposition that is commended for But. again,
take the proposition in its literal sense The argument is,
that the United States may not be bound to indemnify the
citizens Of State Tor losses occasoned by public inter
vsnon. because the Contract is made with the State only
and relates only to the losses OF State Now take the
Of the destruction OF the public property OF State
BY foreign enemy Does any one pretend that the
United States are bound to indemnify tor that LOSS except
that the loss has resulted from the military operations of
the United States exposing it to destrucon Suppose
that the Sae-honse OF any one the States were 10 be
burned down. Would the United States be bound 10 pay
for IL Whether you look to what is the real definition
of State, or assume that definition which is contended
OF the constitutional powers of the government to
pish the object These constitutional powers exered
BY the passage OF such bill in The estimation OF Con
gres, shall be deemed meetor the accomplishment Of the
object But by any extraneOus force, other Mems
that object fails to be accomplished, they cannot
dsrsd responsible in give authority e
establish the broad general principle, that for every con-
stutona right that is not perfectly enjoyed the govern
ment of the United States is liable to indemnify.
Its said-reierring 10 the quotation in the case Of
"Pngg u.s. Pennsy lvania"that il is an acknowledged
principle that for every right there is remedy And
this is undoubtedly true But what does it amount to
According to the understanding Of lawyers what is the
meaning of that term' There must be an adequate
remedy provided BY law Il snot that that remedy
il requires action TO enforce it, and you must provide
the action that necessary for its enforcement That il
the exercise OF your legislative power He goes with
your enactment to the judicial department and obtains
Judgment and. founded upon that, he has execution
surprising the case to he one of debt Suppose there
propey-that the marshal returns nila bona; sup
pose that he eves upon property and takes it, and then
10 rescued by some exraneous force the government
liable 10 indemnify The assertion that every right IN
cludes remedy is only that such remedy is TO be af
foded in the exercise of the constitutional powers Of
the government, can be afforded
Now desire to make one further suggestion, and |
leave this matter What is the condition Of the slave af
Ter this indemnity shall have been paid To all practical
purposes he 10 liberated The longer have
claim upon thai slave; for he escaped, and there
failure 10 deliver him up and indemnity given for
him. To all practical purposes, then, he is emancpaed
And il not this acknowledgement the part of the
Congress OF the United States, that this government
noni Again. If that proposition be not admitted, ask
what ID the condition of the save' Acc riding to the
provsons OF the consttution-though he is practically
mancipated-though there for hm-or rather
his former owner has claim him since he has been
paid for hmyet his status is not changed by his going
into free State for it is declared that slave escaping
from slave State into free State shall not, in
quence thereof OF any law OF the free Sae become
discharged from his service labor He is then still
slave but not OF his former for he has been paid
for him. Whose slave is he' Is he the slave Of the
United States and is this project by which the United
States is 10 be made great slave owner The indemnity
which is paid to the owner annus all his rights. Does
vest in the party making the indemnity The rights thus
taken from the owner Is the effect and operation OF
this bill, first, to acknowledge the power Of the United
States to emancpae the slaves within the United States
or that be if the slave still remain in the status
condition OF slave, is the effect of the BILL by the
payment OF this indemnify TO make the United States The
alave ownerl
The debate was continued by Mr. PRATT and then
the Senate adjourned.