Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-08-24

which imposed apenaty upon the owner in cersu essa n
that extent agree. and further for the judgment could d
further properly. cannot vote for The ndment n
the Senator from Maryland In any point Of view ha can
take Of Il.
Mr. BADGER. speaking Of the decision il the CASE !,
Pgg and Pennsyl decision in which the whole
concued-a decision which leaves no longer to be donb,s
that the constitution imposes obligation upon the Govern
ment Of the United States and upon that Government only
execute this clause Of the constitution The court have
decided and the trainers Of the act Of 1898 thought and
apprehend hs until very period, there was no
question difficulty in the mind Of any body that this obi
CATION resting upon the United States and that the
Government of the United States was bound TO see il dis
charged 1t is true that by the act Of 1898 certain State off,
GERS directed But this does not weaken the con-
cluson furnished by this Of the view Of its aners In
many falling within the ordinary jurisdiction Of the Uni
ted States Do not the laws the United States authorize
the Of offenders against the laws Of the Uaed States
and the carrying Of them before State magistrates justices
Of the peace and commitment for trial by them 6r offences
against the laws of the United States Surely they do but
no inferred that there concurrent obligation
upon the officers of the United States and Of the States to
ecute the laws Of the United States In fact little at
enon to what took place after the organization of the
Government will explain the seeming inconsistency There
have been in the mind Of General Washington then
President Of the Uated States desire to guard the
people of the States against any feeling of repugnanse to-
wards the Governments Government which had been
strongly opposed to aarze them to its operation and to
authority, executed by officers whom they had not been
accustomed. Hence it that he during his adminsa-
ton, sometimes called upon the Of States to execute
duties arising out Of and imposed by the constitution upon
the General Government and for this purpose the act of
1898, and other laws required the magistrates Of the
States to aid in their execution Afterwards the State Judges
held that such duties could be imposed upon them by an
act Of Congress They declined to execute the duties i'm
posed upon them, and in some the States stepped in
and authorized the execution of the laws by their officers
The whole effect therefore, Of the law Of 1888 was to make
the State officers there mentioned quoGd s officers Of the
United States Whether Congress had the power to confer
this authority, and impose this duty upon them, matter
in no way connected with the inquiry am now making.
The case of Pgg and Pennsylvania has established the
principle that upon the United States rests the obligation to
that this provision Of the constitution is carried into effect
and that that obligation rests upon the United States alone
There Is another question to which the Senator from South
Carolina has REFERRED and upon which do now choose
enter because it not germane to the subject before
he Senate and not connected with the argument which
propose TO submit That question how far the States may
voluntarily aid by law the legislation of the United States for
enforcing the surrender Of fugitive slaves The decision Of
hat question can in no way affect my argument My pro-
position is this That according to the decision of the
court in the case Of Pngg and Pennsylvania, the ob
CATION TO enforce this clause Of the constitution rests up
the United States and upon the United States alone
Then what is that obligation The Senator from New
Jersey thinks that it only requires that Congress shall pass
appropriate laws The constitution does say The
constitution nothing about Congress passing appropriate
rom service labor, slaves shall be delivered up and the
luy, according the decision the Of Pgg and Penn
ylyans Of seeing that clause of the constitution executed
upon the United States True the United States must in
he execution Of that duty, have recourse to laws but the
passage of laws the part Of the United States will not be
discharge Of that duty unless they succeed in eecng what
he constitution requires and that is the delivering up of the
ugive If the delivery Of the fugitive enforced the duty
discharged be not enforced then care not what laws
Congress kave passed. discharged The laws
q nend.
themselves Insignificant and worthless they but
written parchments, OF no more value significance than
Did almanac, except as they produce the result which the
constitution requires this Government bring about The
Government of the United States them being bound that
he fugitive redevered to him whom his labor DUE
fails to do it and the complains what is it
him to say, Go to the Department Of State and you will
ind well engossed upon parchment law that we have
passed p The prompt answer would be, " want not your
parchment my complaint u.s. that the fugitive is not deliver
ID up and you bound that delivery accomplished
The only difference between the passage of law and the
passage of law this If Congress passes what deemed
be eecua and good law for the purpose then the good
faith of the nation is saved there voluntary abandon
nent Of the high duty imposed by the constitution and
Sul neglect of it but acknowledgment Of the duty, with
m honest effort to perform it. But, pray you, is the effort
70 perform duty the performance of it, Is fair attempt to
10 thing the actual doing oft The mere statement Of
such proposition shows its faacy Then how stands the
My slave is lost by becoming fugitive into another
Sate use the means which Congress has given by laws
upon the subject 10 recover MIN slave IS not
delivered up. Is the duty Of the United States performed
The constitution is imperative the slave shall be delivered
up Whose duty is to see that be is delivered up Ac
odng to the constant Of this Government and the
unanimous decision Of the highest of the country it is
he sole duty Of the United States Therefore, it is clear
Q my understanding any proposition in ogc-no deduc.
ion regularly from acknowledged premises be palmer,
han that if the slave is not delivered up, tie duty of this
Government not performed because that is done which
The constitution, interpreted by the court Of the last resort
declared il the duty of this Govemmento performed
Then pray you, sir, when say this is the duty of the
Government and when call you TO indemnify for the
loss Of slave, in consequence of the nonperomance Of
made the grand endoser for any body for any State,
for any political community individual It signifies
hing the who has lost his slave through whose in
rumentaity he has lost hmwheher by the action Of State
laws, the unauthorized unprovoked wicked and malicious
concert in force fraud of the inhabitants Of free State 1t
Is enough for him to say, "You bound to that the
constitution is carried out and to see that mpedimens to the
recovery of my property removed and they cannot be-
you bound to indemnify for the loss which has
red in If the United States is pay
indemnity when the United States primarily and solely
bound in this case, ask from whom is the indemnity TO
come, The duty is that Of the United States the loss
suits from failure to discharge that duty, and if the United
II me- therefore, that the Senator from New Jersey
has founded his objection to this amendment upon totally
fallacious view Of the subject
In the next place. the honorable Senator 10 suppose
that the only in which there any obligation upon this
under this clause Of the constitution, where
the surrender Of the fugitive il prevented in consequence OF
law regulation Of the State into which be escapes
His idea, if understand him Alright this that If there be
no hostile legislation, If there be no law regulation of the
State under color of which the recapue Is prevented with
the sembance gh the recpure be prevented by mere
unauthorized violence fraudulent continuance, then this