Weekly national intelligencer., 1850-02-09

lne the Judicial power OF the Union. The off, I
GERS Of each Government are responsible only to
: The respective authorities under which they are
commissioned. But do not the clauses in the |
Constitution, in regard to fugtves from labor and
from justice, give Congress power over STATE |
Officers on these subjects The power in both |
the cases is admitted or proved to be exclusively
in the Federal Government"
ain the first section Of the act of 1893, Congress
have provided that, on demand being made as
z above" " il shall be the duty of the Executive
z authority 10 cause the person demanded to be ar
z rested" &c. The constitutionaiity Of this ia,o,
1t is belieped, has never been questioned. II has
been obeyed by Governors of States, who have
uniformly acknowledged its obligations" &c.
r Now, if Congress may by legislation require this
duty to be performed by The highest State officer,
U may they not on the same principle require ap-
propriate duties in regard to the surrender of fu-
gtives from labor by other State officers? Over
these subjects the constitutional power is the
same,' &C. "I am therefore brought to the con-
clusion that, although general principle Con-
gress cannot impose duties on State officers, yet,
in the of fugitives from labor and from JUS
tice, they have the power to do So"
From the above extracts it is seen that the States
haze NO POWER to legislafe on the reclamation Of
fugitive SLAVES, and that, if such power were
exercised il could be neither uniform nor salutary.
The States, therefore, which have repealed all their
laws on this subject, have only followed out the
decision Of the Supreme Court in the case of Prgg.
Those States alone are blameable, and they are
blameable, which have imposed penalties on their
oic, officers for acting under the la,0 Of Congress.
Very few Of the States have done this: but,
wherever it has been done, it shows hostility to
rights of the South, in this respect, which are
guaranteed by the Constitution; and the Judicial
tribunal in the last resort will not fail so to pro-
nounce. If, by the way, the Supreme Court had
concurred in the opinion above cited of one of its
Judges, that the law Of Congress imposed duty
upon State Officers to deliver up fugitives from
labor on claim being made, no plausible ground Of
complaint on this subject would have been left to
the South.
The words Of the Constitution on this subject
are asfollows:
GA person charged in any State with reason felony,
other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in
another State, shall demand Of the Executive authority
Of the State from which he fed be delivered up, be
moved to the State having jurisdiction Of the crime"
"No person held service or labor in one State under
the laws thereof escaping into another, shall, in
quence Of any law regulation therein be discharged from
the party whom such service labor may be due"
The act of Congress Of 1898 requires the Gov
ernor or Chief Magistrate Of the State Territory
to which fugitive from justice shall have fled, on
demand being made, TO cause him to be arrested
and delivered up. And, when fugitive from labor
is seized and brought before ''any magistrate Of
county, city, or town corporate, wherein such
seizure or arrest shall be made, and upon proof
to the satisfaction Of such judge magistrate !"
that the person seized owes labor, &c. he shall
give certificate Of the fact which shall authorize
the removal Of the fugitive to the place from
whence he fled. Without any preenson to legal
acumen, it appears to US that State officers are as
much bound to deliver up tugitiUes from labor as
tugiiiues from justice. The Supreme Court of
the United States, in the case of Prgg, did say that
they might exercise such power, under the act of
Congress, if not prohibited by the State but it is
to be regretted that the Court did not say it was
their duty to exercise it.
This very subject, however, is now actually
before Congress- and, it having been decided,
by the Supreme Court Of the United States, that
the States hare not tie poaCer to legslate on
the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it may be hoped
that, before the session closes, Congress will by
law provide adequate powers to carry fully into
effect the provision Of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States on this subject. That being done, moth
ing will remain, on this score, for the Southern
States to complain of.
The argument Of danger to the South, inferred
by the Address" from the difference Of opinion
between the People Of the North and Of the South
on the subject Of the Institution Of Slavery, can
alarm none but very sensitive or very mid minds.
The same difference Of sentiment has existed, ac-
cordng to the Address itself, from the formation
of the Constitution-aye, from the time when lin
the language ofthe old Primer) !" in Adams fall we
snned all" Our readers have seen, in our former
number on this subject, how that opposition of
sentiment manifested itself in the First Congress of
the United States, quite expressivey, as angriy
and obsnately, as it does at the present day. But
this difference Of opinion at that day elected no
appeals to the People Of the South TO right their
wrongs by any unlawful and violent procedure, much
less by resort to arms, or to dissolution Of the
Union! No, truly; the men Of that day knew
the value of the Union. AS the Address of the
Southern members Of Congress tells us, they had
great difficulty in establishing Government for
the United States, and they were too happy in
having got into the Union to be in any haste to
break om Of ii. Experience in our own Gov
obo.yy, c,t;l;t,, of