The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-03-22

responsible
brethren We will not 60 back again reproach
upon the ancestors Of either but ia the actual bringing
OF the African here, in the planting OF them upon
soiyed in the osncs offence i 6sss we ourselves 81 is
Well then, Mr. President. the question arises-for il
is TO this particular purpose that make these remarks
what i !. that We have Sht TO ask Of our northern
TO the subject OF slavery Being existing instnton
being such as have described it-t being abso-
utely necessary and inevitable 30 far a. any human
legislation can be brought TO bear any human fore
sight is TO discover that must contnuewhat have we
right to ask from our northern iriendsi
IN the first place, we have right to ask an efectual
bill Tor the recapue OF fugitive slaves That must lie at
the foundation Of any paei6caton Of feeling between the
North and the South. Without IT, every attempt TO settle
the agiang question will be as insecure and toiteng as
house built without suitable foundation This 10 a
question OF rights this is demand founded upon the
sttuon this is not matter Of question or debate. II
there is anything in the constitution free from doubt diff
Guilty, dispute, II is that that instrument gives right
our fugitves surrendered to us II the consttu
ton gives that right, il gives US, necessary
quence Of it. right to demand an efectua bill TO carry
human means will avail, certainly.
Now. Mr. President, desire TO say few words upoa
the subject OF this bilwhat it should be. what is the
remedy which we have right to ask, and which the
In the first place remark that the trainers Of the con-
sution designed to carry out this princpeupon which
the States existed under separate organization they should
still be considered to this purpose that each should
repose entire and absolute confidence in the integrity and
capacity OF the judicial tribunals and legislation Of every
other State to administer justice in regard to all its c
zens and SUBJECTS and therefore, that both with regard
to fugves from service and fugves from justice, there
should be an imperative obligation to restore the respect
i've ugves to the jurisdiction from which they escaped
and make them amenabe in every respect TO the determ
nation OF that jurisdictions that the two stand upon
the same foundations, and were intended to be governed
BY the same principles.
The provision Of the constitution as to fugtves from
justice is in these words:
"A person charged any State with felony.
other Sate sha on demand OF the executive authority Of
the Stale from which he fed be delivered to be removed
TO the State having Jurisdiction OF the crime"
ssWho shall flee from Justice" But an innocent man
fleeing from prosecution commenced false ground
licously prosecuted, to be tried by arbitrary tn
buna, not in strict and proper sense fleeing from Jus
tce yet, within the meaning OF the constitutions he fees
from justice who, being charged with treason felony,
other crime. in State Of the Union having jurisdiction
of the subject, leaves the State to avoid trial. The
shall be taken 10 have the capacity and integrity to deter
mine justly and therefore when he fees from It, whet
in fact guilty innocent he is 10 be treated as fug
tive from justice
AS to f1gives from service the constitution provides
thus: tt
No person held service labor in State, under
the laws thereof escaping into another, shall In conse
qnence of any law regulation therein be discharged
from such service labor but shall be delivered
claim of the party whom such service or labor may be
due"
Ihe two cases are In principle precisely slmllaI.
The fugitive from justice is 10 be delivered up to the
executive who represents, in external transactions, the
justice OF the State the fugitive from labor is to be de-
livered up, on the claim OF him to whom such labor
be DUE and each to be returned to that jurisdiction
to which he is properly amenable; and the question
whether is guilty, the other is ghtfuly slave, Is
question to be transferred 10 the jurisdiction In which
the fugitive may be found.
This Mr. President was the view OF those who passed
the ACT OF 1893 In the first place, that act OF 1893 in
cudes under the same statute provisions in respect
Of hesp
up OF the fugitive from justice, upon the trans
mission OF evidence 10 show that he has been duly
whose justice he ought to be amenable And. in regard
to fugitive from labor il authorizes the master, his
agent attorney, ito seize or arrest such fugitive,
Oa met o ar bv
ant his agent or attorney, .,ic shall be sufficient tcar.
rs.t for r5snop,ng s he's SAID Jg,ys from aS9r s.o % ne
shall be sufficient proof that the person delivered up Is
slave or owes the labor The caimant-not shall SETTLE
or determine adudcate the question MOI that ques-
lion is open, to be settled by the jurisdiction of the
State from which he escapes Then he is TO be returned
Them il he is wronguly detained in slavery. he must
make his appeal to the proper tribunals AccSSrdng to
recognised in this statute, ii is to their justice and their
the whole must be con6ded. And, Mr..
presldeni i was M Mai;lmporlant , ,hai such provision
the habit OF surrendeng fugves from justice or
from labor Each State seems to have considered itself
benefited, Its neghb0r was INJURED by us receiving,
and entertaining fugves from justice
and when slave escaped, as the law which recognised
slavery strictly territorial in its opeation OF course
the State government To which ne escaped denied the
right TO reclaim the fugitive Il was, therefore, inds
pensabe TO the formation OF our constitutional Union
that there should be introduced provision by which
the ordinary practice and doctrine OF States in regard
to both OF these should be reverseda provision
by which the domestic question should be left to the do
mesc rbunashould not be transferred to another ju
risdicon by the escape OF the individual but should in
every case be submitted TO the proper domestic usdc
lion, BY returning the fugitive, whether the claim upon
him should be for justice or for service.
Il was said by the honorable senator from New York,
Mr. SEwARD1 that this wasa compact in the constltu
ton TO be executed only by the States Now, whether
il was compact to be executed by the States or not is
question not distinctly open for our consideration al this
day.
In the first place, do not agree in the opinions which
that the Supreme Court Of the United States has commit
ted an error in supposing the jurisdiction was in
Congress. Certainly those who passed the act 1893
thought that they had jurisdiction Il and the Su
preme Court OF the United States have determined that
Congress has jurisdiction it, II is therefore
compact between the States than any other portion OF
the constitution is compact The constitution forms
government The legislative power OF that government
here and II for Congress TO give effect to every
provision OF the constitution requiring legislative &C.
lion.
Again, the senator from New York said that the slave
States induced legislation by Congressrcerring to the
ac OF 1923. Now, Mr. President, did not exactly like
that phrase That the slave States the representatives
from States owning slaves, had in some way or Other
prevailed upon Congress TO transcend It's power with
some view or other sir there is no authority upon
earth for saying so The act OF 1893 was approved upon
The 10Th OF February in that year II was during the
second Congress held under the constitution II was Just
a.. k>1I .nla faor Df