Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1850-05-30

lion, ii not the whole, oil the amount OF what
Is thus proposed 10 be advanced to Texas.
"lt cannot be anticipated that Texas will
decline 10 accede 10 these liberal propositions
but il she should, it is 10 he distinctly under,
stood tha! the title Of The United States 10
any territory acquired from Mexico east OF
the Rio Grsnde will remain unimpaired and
in the same condition as il the proposition OF
adjustment now offered had never been made.
"a majority OF The committee recommend
TO the Senate that The section containing these
proposals 10 Texas shall be incorporated in.
10 the bill embracing the admission Of Cali
lornia as State, and the establishment OF
Territorial Governments for Utah and New
Mexico. The definition and establishment
Of the boundary between New Mexico ard
Texas has an intimate and necessary connex-
ion with the establishment OF a Territorial
Government for New Mexico. To form q
Territorial Government for New Mexico,
without prescribing the limits OF the Terrific.
~, would leave the work imperfect and in,
complete, and might expose New Mexico 10
serious controversy, if not dangerous coils,
ions with the State Of Texas. And most, il
not all the considerations which unile in fa,
vor OF combining the bill for the admission
OF California as a State and the Territorial
bills, apply 10 the boundary question OF Tex.
as. BY the union Of the three measures.
every question o(dilficulty and division which
has arisen out Of the territorial acquisitions
from Mexico will, it is hoped, be adjusted,
or placed in train Of satisfactory adjustment.
The committee, availing themselves Of the
arduous and valuable labors OF the Committee
on Territories, report a bill, herewith annex,
ed, (mofked Az embracing those three mea>
sures, the passage Of which, uniting them To-,
geiher, they recommend 10 the Senate.
The committee will now proceed to
the consideration of, and to reFor, up.
on. the subject of persons owing SER
vice or labor in one State escaping into
another. The text Of The constitution
is quite clear: "No person held to labor
or service in one State, undcr the lars
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in
consequence of any law or regulation
therein, be dischar ged from such service
or labor. but shall be delivered up on the
claim Of the party TO whom such ser.
vice or labor may he due" Nothing
can be more explicit than this language
nothing more manifest than the right
to demand, and the obligation to deiv-
er up TO the claimant, any such fugitive.
And the constitution addresses itself
alike TO the States composing the Union
and to the General Government. If,
indeed there were any difference in the
duty 10 enforce this portion of the con-
slnutlon between the States and the
Federal Government. il is more clear
that it is that Of the former than of the
latter. But it is the duty of both. 1t
is now well known and iucontes,able
that citizens in slaveholding States en-
counter the greatest difficulty in obtain.
ing the benefit of this provision of the
constitution. The attempt to recapture
fugitive is almost always a subject of
great irritation and excitement. and Of
ten leads 10 most unpleasant, if not per.
ilous. collisions. An owner of slave,
II is squite notorious, cannot pursue his
property, for the purpose of recovery,
in some Of the States. without imminen,
personal hazard. This is deplorable
state Of things, which ought to be RENE.
died. The law of 1898 has been found
wholly Intellectual. and requires more
stringent enac,ments. There is, espc-
ciaIly. Il deficiency in the number of
public funclionaries authorized TO af
ford aid in the seizure and arrest of fu.
gi,ives. Various States have declined
TO afford aid and CO operation in the
surrender of fugitives from labor, as
the committee believe, from q miscon.
ception oftheir duly arising under the
Constitution Of the United States. 1t
is true that decision Of the Supreme
Court Of the United States has given
countenance to them in Withholding
their assistance. But the committee
cannot believe that the intention of the
Supreme Court has been misunderstood.
They cannot but think that the court
merely meant that laws of the several
States which created obstacles in the
way of the recovery of fugilives were
not authorized by the constitution. and
no, that State laws affording facilities
in the recovery of fugitives were for.
bdden by that instrument.
The non. on.slaveholding States, what,
ever sympa,hes any of their citizens
may feel for persons who escape from
other States, cannot discharge them.
selves from an obligation TO enforce the
constitution of the United States. All
parts of the instrument being depend
ent upon and connected with each 9th.
er, ought to be fairly and Justly enforc'
ed. If some States may seek 10 exonc.
rate themselves from one portion of the
constitution, other States may endeavor
to evade the performance of other por.
,ions of il; and thus the instrument, in
some of lis most important provisions,
might become imperative and invalid.
Rnt whatever NAV he the conduct of