Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-02-02

These were the equivalents that given by those VINO
then comparatively in power-the slavehodng States
for the guarantees seeking to enforce. Row
stands the my fortune to come nom state
bordering north and west upon the States OF Pennsyana
and Ohio Of them longer holding slaves and
the other carved of the Northwestern Territory, wnere
slaves were never introduced and it is matter known to
and child in the Commonwealth oil Virginia, nat
just impossible fugitive slave now IN ene
Of those States would be to bring him up tne
Of the Look the law that passed IN the year 30
now upon eur statute books Is it not dead letter IN most
if not in all the non-saveholding States They have pro-
hibed their officers under pain Of fine and imprisonment from
executing this law And in such spirit that THIS law,
resting on the constitutions is treated by those who content
themselves with Pharisacal expressions while they taun us
with want of loyalty the constitution The siavehodng
States pursuit of their property Cor the citizens OIL nose
Sates States where slaves not held, are treated not
only Aliens but enemies and that feeling Is tosteed
among the people every session of their Legislatures
feeling, Mr. President seems to have grown up gradually
There time, sir when the States felt each othe
really sister States, they generally Called having
community of interest the compact under which they are
federated, and community Of purpose to enforce IT, Inc
State of State which believe stands In
advance of all others in determined spirit OF resistance 70
this clause constitutions late the year lfeu De-
fore the constitution into effect in her law for the abo
ton Of slavery within that State reserved clause 10 protect
the citizens Of those States in this right OF recapture OF ug
tives will read il, sir desire that may go into the
history of the country well as upon the statute DOCKS Of
that State. This is the clause:
Sec. H. That this thing herein contained snail
give any relief shelter to any abscondg or
negro who has absconded or SHAH
abscond himself from his hsr owner or master vi
ter like right and aid to demand, claim,
and take away his slave servant as ne might have had IN
this had not been made-La.y Of a6ohsng
sldverY in Pennsyra'ia.
Yes sir such was the spirit of Pennsylvania in 1880,
time when she under obligations to pass such law,
because before the adoption of the present constitution
the spirit which then regulated the intercourse Of the
States before they federated under the present const
tuition, before they had entered into that wrong act the od
nances of which vainy seek TO enforce Reclama
ton of slave by his treated right, and to
aid him prescribed a duty.
Mr. President, my reading Of these clauses of the
stuon for extradon of ugves of both classes advance
the confident opinion that it devoves upon the States the duty
providing by law both for their capture and delivery de-
wolves this duty upon the Staes-a duty, admit, as
civilians term it. of imperfect obligation but although of i'm
perfect obligation in the technically Of law, duty Of higher
obligation fact than if it could be enforced by legal
ion-a duty founded in honor in loyalty and IN good faith
between nation and nation of those duties devolv
ed upon the States be performed under the obligations OF
honor and good fahoblgaons which the forum of honor
alone enforce.
Let us look a. The language of the law OF So The first
clause for the extradton Of fgtives from justice provides
that upon the demand Of the Executive of the State, they
shall "be delivered up" BY whom Nopary is prescrib-
I'd by that clause by whom such delivery is to be made
The language Of the second clause, which relates to
The extradon Of fugtves from labor, in the terms
hat they shall g be delivered up BY whom No party
prescribed that clause, by whom they shall be delivered
addressed
dcon of the State into which the fugitive may escape. It
addressed the sovereign power of that State and the
mandate is, that they shall "be delivered up.
Sir THE very exposition Of it has been made by the Con-
gress of the United States within four years after the adop
ton Of the constitution by the passage of the act Of 1898
BY that is made the duty of the Executive of the State
deliver up" fugitive from justice and it is made the
duty Of the Judicial officers OF the State as well as Of the
Federal Government, to furnish the necessary legal process
for the surrender Of the fugitive from labor Now sir it is
said by these StaesI believe by all of them, though it is
by my purpose here TO arragn them-I admit that
they sovereign and independent States and that they
bound by no ties but those which bind them in honor and
good faith unless the Federal legislation operate mmed
aey upon their peoPle)-they say, sir by their legislation
that Congress has power TO impose duties the State
officers The law of the State of Pennsylvania OF Massa
chuses, and believe of other States declares that if any
officer of the State execute the law Of 1898, far ug
ses from labor concerned, they shall be fined and inn
pisoned denying only the benefit Of the exercise of the
State authority for the surrender of these fugves, but deny
ing the General Government the power to impose such du
ties upon them. #.>
How it sir in relation that part Of the law of 1893
which relates to fugves from justice That law imposes
the duty Of surrender upon the Executive authority of the
State Has Congress any more power TO impose that duty
upon the Executive authority than upon the Judicial auho
None whatever and yet we find no legislation Of these
States directed to that exercise Of the federal
power. And why Because is subject in which they
all interested All the States interested in the
render Of fgtves from justice but to the other clause
such interest resides only in the savehodg States and be-
Of the absence OF interest, much Of the
law affects fugiyes from labor is in fact nued by the
saveholdng States. aware, Mr.. President, ii has
been sad-and think by the gentleman from Vermont,
(Mr. PHELrs who delivered able argument upon kin
dred topics the other day-tha the Supreme Court Of the
United States hos denied that the States have any right
to egsae for the surrender of fugitives from labor
Sir read those decisions very differently The Supreme
Court has decided this, and In the cited
by that honorable geneman-a really between the
States of Maryland and Pennsylvania, though entitled the
case OF Prgg rs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Ao.l Id IA
has decided that any law Of the State Of Pennsylvania
prsonng subecting any punishment citizen of ano-
her State who into Pennsylvania and takes possession
there of his property being slave, unconstitutional and
that is all OF It. The case sir, was simply this
Mr.. PHELPS. Will the Senator indulge me think
the Senator has msconceved my argument My position is
peme Court is not obligatory upon the States legsate
for the enforcement Of the law. That the proposition
maintained.
Mr.. MASON. do not so understand that decision.
do understand the Supreme Court to have decided by
any MEANS that there obligation the States provide
by their laws for the surrender of fugtives from labor fist
because they the power decide and secondly
because the case did not call for it. The Supreme Court
only said through Judge Story, who delivered the opinion
that there under the constitution Of coecng
the States to provide by law for the delivery Of this class Of
fugitves very far from understanding that ii has
been said by the Supreme Court by any of its Justices
that the duty Of the States provide by law
although they cannot be coerced The has only sad
that any provision in The State laws in conravenon not
suppo Of this clause of the constitution is unconstitutional
and void.
AS about say the before the Supreme Court
simply this BY law Of Pennsylvania passed in 1926,
enacted by section two, that if any person should,
within the limits Of that State take and carry away any
gro or muato by and violence &c. he should be deem
conviction. felony. punished