Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1850-02-01

GATE is that they shall "be delivered up
Sir, this very exposition of has been made by the Con-
gress OF the United States within four years after the ado
tion of the Constitution by the passage of the of 1888
BY that ac, il is made the duty of the executive of the State
to deliver up fugitive from justice, and Is made the
duty of the judicial officers Of the State we'll as of the
Federal Government TO furnish the necessary legal process
tor the surrender Of the fugitive from labor Now sir II is
said by these StatesI believe by oil of them though is
by no means my purpose here to arragn them-Q admit
that they sovereign and independent States and that
they bound by ties but those which bind them In ho
nor and good fh unless tho federal legislation operate
medately upon their pcopethey say sir by their egisla
tion that Congress has power impose duties upon
State officers The law Of the State Of Pennsylvania of
Massachusetts, and believe of other States declares that
any officer Of the State execute the aw of 793 far
fugitiycs from labor concerned they shall bo fined and
imprisoned denying no, only the benot of tho exercise of
the State authority for the surrender of these ugyes but
denying to the general tho power impose such
duties upon them.
How is it, sir in relation that part the law of 1898
which relates to ugves from justice That law imposes
the duty of surrender upon tho executive authority of the
State. Has Congress any moro power to impose that duty
upon the executive authority than upon the Judicial autho
l None whatever and yet find no Legislation of these
States directed TO that exercise of the lede
raj power And why? Because Is subject in which thoy
interested in the surrender of ugitivos from ustcc but
to the other clause such interest resides only in the
savehoding States and of the absence of
interest," much OF the law affects fugtives from
labor is in fact nui6cd by the nonsav vsholdng States
am aware Mr. President has been saidand think by the
gentleman from Vermont Mr.. PHELPS, who delivered SO
able argument upon kindred topics the other daytha
tho Supreme Court Of the United States has denied that the
States have any right legslac for the surrender of fu
tves from labor Sir read those decisions very differently
The Supreme Cour, has decided this and In the
cited by that honorable gcntlemana really be-
tween the States of Maryland and Pennsylvania though
entitled the of Prigg The Commonwealth of Penn
syvana,he Supreme Court has decided this and nothing
more II has decided that any law of the State of Pennsy
vania mprisonng or subectng 10 any citizen
OF another State who into Pennsylvania and takes
possession there of his property being slave is uncons
utiona and that all of it. The case sir simply this
Mr.. PHELPS. Will the Senator indulge me! ! think
pNiSr raixn1
this, simply; that as understand the decision OF the Su
prene Court it is not obligatory upon the States cgslate
for the enforcement Of the law. That was the proposition
maintained.
Mr.. MASON. do not SO understand that decision. l
do not understand the Supreme Court TO have decided by
means that there s no obligation the States
vide, by their laws for the surrender Of fugitves from Ia
bour first because they have the 80 TO decde and
secondly because the did not call for IT, The Supreme
Court has only said through Judge Story who delivered the
opnlon that there were no means under the constitution o
coerchg the States to provide by law for the delivery OF this
class OF fusves am very far from understanding that it
has been said by the Supreme Court By any Of its
Justices that it not the duty of the States TO provide
by law. although they cannot be cocccd The court has
only said that provision in the State laws i'll onaren
on mot in suppor of this clause OF the constitution Is -
constitutional and void
As about to say the case before the Supreme Court
simply this BY law of Pennsylvania passed in lSb
il enacted by section that if any person should
within the limits of that State take and carry away any ne
gro muat,o by force and violence &c. h. should be dee
ed conviction guilty of felony, and punished by nc ana
Imprisonment serve labor Prigg went into the State oi
Pennsylvania, the agent of Maryland claimant lie
obtained warrant from the proper officers under the law OF
1926 the ugvc and when arrested he taken
before justice Of the peace required by that but the
justice refused to act The agent then as no had pcrec'
right do brought the slave beyond the limits OF ennsy
vana and for doing, he was indicted IN
under the first section of the act The decision OF Inc Su-
eme Court upon the single point that as the claimant
had right take his property wherever found and without
previous of law, the act Of the State making SUCH
taking offence unconstitutional and void think
that will be found to be really the point udicay decided IN
that case,
have said, however, Mr.. President that according to my
Interpretation of this law Of the constitution, il imposes
duty upon the States of providing for tho capture and srren-
der of ugves from labor well US OF fugitives from JUS
tice Sir the law of 793 the only law passed BY Congress
upon that subject was passed. as we Know his.1ca IN
syvania upon the State of Virginia. think In the year 9z
for the surrender of fugitive from Justice The Governor
of Virginia reped that without some legislation either by
the State of Virginia by the Congress of the United
States he had power order the arrest Of free person
within tho State of Virginia. General Washington, to
whom the Governor OF ted the reply
of the Governor of Virginia. submitted it TO tho Congress of
the United States, and the opinion of Edmund Randolph,
then Attorney General, was taken upon It, Ihat Attorney
Genea known to the country ssan able lawyer had been
member of the convention which formed the constitutions
and the following extract from his opinion will show that he
understood the constu.ion applied to fugtlves from
justice devolved this duty Of delivery upon the States
81 Differ further in not discovering the daaoy OF virgil
mia 10 deliver up the eendors u mas oSen Ian,
which the demand is made should express an appronaton
that they may be appehendod within its territories bat us
and might disturb the tranquility Of one State If the oi-
Of another liberty seize criminal within Its
imshe natural and safe Interpretation s that the deiVe
y must from Virgina Extract from tbs opinion q
Edmund Randolph
Now sir the delivery must be made by Virginia State,
exercising control the subject to be delivered and
having power to effect it, Tho language s "ho delivery
must conc from Virginia clearly indicating aa no read the
Constitution, that Virginia owed this duty and was bound
under the terms Of the Constitution, to perform u.
Sir will submit il to any lawyer statesman to examine
these two clauses of the Consution-one requiring that
ugyes from justice should be delivered and the other
recurring that fugves from labor should be delivered up
and TO point to any distinction whatever between them that
would devove the duty of delivery upon Stale In tho one
case and that would relieve the State from the duty OF deli
very in the other The language in both is tho sae and
this Government has just much Tght 70 require OF the
Executive of e States that they shall deliver up ugves
from labor as to require Of tho Executive that they snail dell
yer up fugitiyes from Jusce-Just as mucn.
Sir agree that the federal government ms no power 10
impose duties of any kind upon the officers OF the State 60
such and to this e1tent the law Oh Iss was
badly devised But is worthy of remark that the States
orbddng their officers that have connca ter
prohibition altogether much of the law as relates to iu-
qitiye slaves leaving affected much of II as relates to
5upyes from labor-a most selfish distinction, indeed,
which will allow the execution OF 30 much OF law a. ocnc
ts themselves and forbds the execution OF 30 huch vi c
same law will benefit Others
10 deyove il upon the States federal duty 10 enforce oy
their own laws within their respective limits both these
clauses of extradtion and that they just delinquent to
honor and faith in their refusal TO enforce tho one as they
would be in q refusal TO enforce the other ~
so'tt-'N''
subject in the holding Sates have endeavored
az far as am competent do TO show what duties Inc
Constitution devoyes upon them. But Sir do not moan
10 aragn these Staes have no power to DO ana es
dsposition But nm bound to point tn 'heir anu
10 show the castng of this question VIII take inc
State of Pennsylvania from any feeling OF hostility to
wards her but because far the State of Virginia IS
concernedth State which |, in part represent here
Pennsylvania is the great offender have shown What was
tho spirit of the people of Pennsylvania before the Consu
ton Was formed have show what 1t is now under hat
Constitution In 1926 law was passed. as have SAID,
furnishing authority the officers Of the State OF Fennsy=
yania for the capture and surrender of fugitive slaves In
s47 that law was epealed-repeacd in far as any
aid was given to the claimant in the reclamation OF his pro-
ncrv and not repealed only but madea felonous Oh
nce in any officer of the State Government to execute any
uroyisns of the law of 793-under The penalty Of fine and
imnrsonment at scryie labor Sir the State went further
!, m.de il an offence punishable by fine and imprisonment
e ,he kecper of any Jail permit fugitive from labor ar
,ed in the State OF Fonnsyyania 10 be confined in the
jail. -. . ,,o ,,rh,, :..,rsd hv tho
d, the whose slave escapes from his ser
;.o into anothcr State Desiring sir TO be very accurate
mon his subject have written down what understand TO
a tho right Of the owner the offs fugitive slave
,shin the limits of any and every State Of tho Union.
Mr NJ here read from paper as follows;
uThe Constitution of the United States secures 10 tho
master the same right of property in his slave and TO bo ell
ooJ and eyerc3cd 10 the extent and with inc same