Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1850-11-07
MIR. Crittenden's opinion of the
Fugitive Slave Law.
ATTORNEY Generals OrFIoE, }
,September 1871, 1850. {

September 1871, 1850.
Sir: have had the honor to receive
your note of this date, informing me that
the bill commonly called the Fugitive
Slave Bill, having passed both Houses Of
Congress, had been submitted to you for
your consideration, approval, and sigma
turc, and requesting my opinion whether
the sirh section of that act, and espe-
cially the last clause of that section, con-
flicts with the provision of the Constitu-
ton which declares that 81 the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when, in cases of re-
bellion or invasion, the public safety may
require it."
II is my clear conviction that there is
nothing in the last clause, nor in any
part of the sirih section, nor indeed in
any part of the provisions Of the act,
which suspends, or was intended to sus-
pend, the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, or is in any manner in conflict
with the Constitution.
The Constitution, in the second section
of the fourth article, declares that :" no
person held TO service or labor in the
State, under the laws thereof, escaping
into another, shall, in consequence of any
law or regulation therein, be discharged
from such service or labor, but SHALL be
delivered up on claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be
DUE
II is we'll known and admitted, histori-
cally and judicially, that this clause of
the Constitution was made for the pur-
pose of securing to the citizens of slave
holding States the complete ownership
in their slaves, as property, in any and
every State or Territory of the Union
into which they might escape. Prigg
VS.. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, l6
Pefeys, 539.) 1t devolved on the General
Government, as a solemn duty, to make
that security eilectual. Their power
was not only clear and full, but accord
ing to the opinion Of the Court in the
above cited case, it was exclusive; the
States, sevcrally, being under no obliga-
ton, and having no power to make laws
or regulations in respect TO the delivery
of fugitives. Thus the whole power,
and with it the whole duty, of carrying
into effect this important provision Of the
Constitution. was with Congress; and
accordingly, soon after the adoption of
the Constitution, the act of the 18th
February, 1898, was passed; and that
proving unsatisfactory and inefficient, by
reason (among other causes) of some
minor errors in its details, Congress are
now attempting by this bill to discharge
a constitutional obligation, by securing
more eiiectually the delivery of fugitive
slaves to their owners. The sirth and
most material subject in substance de-
clares that the claimant of the fugitive
slave may arrest and carry him before
any one Of the officers named and de-
scribed in the bill, and provides that these
officers and each of them shall have iu-
diciai power and jurisdiction to hear,
examine, and decide the case in sum
mary manner; that if upon such hear
ing the claimant, by the requisite proof,
shall establish his claim TO the satisiac-
tion of the tribunal thus constituted, the
said tribunal shall give him certificate,
stating therein the substantial facts of
the case, and authorizing him, with such
reasonable force as may be necessary, TO
take and carry said fugitive back to the
State or Territory whence he or she may
have escaped, and then in conclusion pro-
ceeds as follows: " The certificates in this
sand the first section mentioned shall
abe conclusive of the right of the per-
"son or persons, in whose favor granted,
"to remove such fugitive TO the State or
"Territory from which he escaped, and
"shall prevent all molestation of such
"person or persons by any process is
Issued by any Court, Judge, magistrate,
cor other person whomsoever."
There is nothing in all this that does
not seem 10 me to be consistent with the
Constitution, and necessary, indeed, TO
redeem the pledge which it contains
that such fugitives "shall be delivered
up on claim" of their owners.
The Supreme Court of the United
States has decided that the owner, indie
pendent of any aid from State or nation
al legislation, may, in virtue of the Con-
stitution and his own right Of property,
seize and recapture his fugitive slave,
in whatsoever State he may find him, and
carry him back to the State or Territory
from which he escaped. { Prigg vs..
Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, 10 Pet,
$780, This bill, therefore, confers no
right on the owner of the fugitive slave /;
it only gives him an appointed and peace