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


AIMED IN the opinion Of The in the case Of Pfigg v
the Commonwealth OF Pennsyly ana as evncing III ab.
sence constitutional obligation the part Of Congress
TO indemnify Tor these losses Sir that honorable ssna
tor surely will not maintain that that question Was pre-
sened TO the court IN any form whatever But whether
there not an obligation upon the United
States the Judge who delivered the opinion found Ia the
clause of the constitution duty imposed upon Congress
to legisale. lie found that duty, and enforced III and
thence the infers that legislation exhausted the
whole OF the duty, and he read from the opinion Of the
court which was intended TO show this duty in Congress
@ ID that ma e duty WAS a wba
opinion, which go 10 show very different meaning rom
That aserbed BY the senator Judge Story who delivered
'he opinion oil the court, said: t...s tt.
This leads consideration of the other part of the
cause' Which Implies al once guaranty and duty
! What is guaranty Why the learned Judge, who
delivered this exposition of the clause had the whole
constitution before bins and he found BY that consttu
uoh hat he States had been disabled from taking this
dress into their own hands They were forbidden rom
declaring war; they forbidden from Keeping armies
treaties they had disabled themselves from enior-
cng remedies against their sister States or foreign
nations, where losses were sustained from hostile acts
OF doing in the general government created by this con-
stulion Now, hen the judge found in that clause not
duty alone. but guaranty, which in the legal acceptaton
OF the term means either enforcing the obligation or
paying Indemnity if the duty is not enforced That
the only apprehension j can give = guaranty What
other State he shall be delivered upa guaranty necessa
y required by the slave States because they had parted
Of the Judge not only imports that there was duty upon
Congress to egsate in such manner as 70 effect the
claim, but that there was guaranty to efecti MIN, WIN
But again. sir let advert to that clause OF the con-
sttuon which involves the general right to protect the
States from invasion The language OF the constituents
mrhe United States shall guarantee 70 every State in this
Union republican form OF government and shall protect
each OF them against invasion" Now, sir. with whom
is that covenant made The United States do Il;
Statenot with the citizens of the State. The State
is bound to protect its citizens against nvasioni but
for purposes of federal harmony and for purposes Of
federal obligations entered into by this compact, they
voluntarily disavowed this object Having done This.
and having thus disabled themselves the United States
what is i that the United States have assumed 10
do for the States To indemnify the citizens Ger
tainy not But they have assumed the place, Of the
she cannot project herself The covenant is, then, with
the States and have yet to hear the honorable sentt
upon the United States the duty to indemnify that STATE
for the loss which it may sustain by reason Of an invs
sion which II had not the power to repel concsded
sistpg INVASION the general government 10 bound pay
it. Now, what is the covenant upon which the amend
covenant with individuals. The United States declare
that the fugitive shall be delivered up on claim OF The
party entitled to the service This being separated ind
vduaized and brought directly within the meaning Of
the constitution the party whom the obligation ests
TO the party TO whom the service is DUE apPrehend
is incumbent upon the United States to cit
lzen for the guaranty. in the language Of the Supreme
Court enforced upon the United States TO be fulfilled
[Mr PRATT here again addressed the Senate. -
Mr.. BERRlEN. The suggestion Mr. President, mat
have delivered an argument here which has shocked
the senator from Virginia my apology for brief reply
had stated the extreme reluctance with which thosA
remarks submitted to the Senate that the opinion
which delivered was the result OF deliberate and aHx,
ious reflection with desire TO arrive at opposite con-
cuson, and that it was, nevertheless, the cOnvchon OK
my own judgment sorry therefore, that the ssns-
tor from Virginia should fit TO characterize such an
argument as one at which he was shocked Lsls.o
Mr.. MA SON. II the senator will Indulge me mo-
men will stale to him that IT was the kindness and
respect entertained to that senator which induced me to
make the remark. The remark not that was
was that the respect entertained Tor him was shocked
Mr. BERRIEN. | atn sorry that the unhappy couse-
quence OF the explanation of the senator will be- that
have fallen in his respect by the OF an argument
which shocked him. This is my misfortune, and | re-
greet IT.
But, sir, waEt the advocates of this amendment to
consider practically of their own arguments GER
tanly did not intend say word beyond the mere dis
passionate and reluctant statement of what my con-
vcton the subject But am constrained 10 vindicate
those remarks when thus assailed Now, what was the
argument OF the genilemani IL was that this was the
only direct and practicable mode Of enforcing this clause
of the constitution Well now sr,as question OF fact,
upon what is that assertion founded AS a matter OF
fact. upon comparatively few instances in which these
distractions have been nteposed, when you contrast
them with the numerous instances IN which the existing
law has been found inefficient There hundreds and
thousands Of fugtves that found There are
hundreds and thousands who found and restored
and there comparatively few instances in which these
distractions have prevented their return And yet is
said that any legislation upon the subject must be incomPe
10 effect the ration OF fugitive slaves And then.
what is il that the advocates OF the amendment propose
for The purpose of accomplishing this obect' They
tain amendment, which, dlscarding the idea OF the
redeuerg required by the constitution, proposes 10
the fugitive The constitution says the slave shall be
delivered up. They propose to carry into effect that
clause by saying he shall be paid for, abandoning the
idea OF his redellvery. III. i.4
Mr.. PRATT, lin his seat) II not delivered up.
Mr. BERR,EN OF course he is not paid for il he is
delivered up II abandons the idea OF the constitution in
the only alternative in which it operates at all The bill
provides Tor the delivery The amendment requires y the
delivery shall not take place. that indemnify shall be
made. Now sir, that is plain manifest ABANDONMENT
of the object OF the constitution to the whole extent OF inc
amendment. There il question about that.
The senator from Virginia. in commenting on what
said in relation the decision of the Supreme Court in
which urged by the decision of that court the guar
anty OF the United States confined to the exercise oil
the legislative executive, and judicial powers OF this gov
ernmen tells me that the question OF indemnity was
not raised No. sir, II not raised. venture to say
that The question OF indemnity will never be raised before
that tribunal do not know any advocate who would
venture, upon that clause Of the constitution, to assert
the constitutional obligation OF the United States to in
demnify the owner for the loss OF runaway slave. But
what the question before the Supreme Court MOI
question OF indemnity, but the extent and operation o.
obligation and a duty And what said the Supreme Court
Why, that this guaranty thisduty imposed gov
of the United States the necessity OF ano'os
an efficient remedy and how The honorao's sen
ator from Maryland says, not through he s'uo" "
their legislative department alone no, s., I'M
poses upon them the obligation which stated TO tne
senator in the outset OF tins discnsson, ne ouy