New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-04-14
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.
Letter from John Vas Buren, 20 the hessa'
chusetts Convention.

Letter from John Vaa Buren, 20 the hessn'
chusetts Convention
Mr.. }. p. BLANCHARD:
Dear SIR. have received your favor OF the
3lst ult inviting me TO be present and address q
Convention of the people Of MASSACHUSETTS, who
are opposed to the Fugitive Slave Law on the
eth inst, at Boston. Ny engagements here are
such as 20 prevent my complying with your inYl-
tstion; but can re ably respond 10 the request
which accompanies it, TO be informed, by letter,
of nv sentiments respecting the law referred to.
The act in question processes 10 carry out the
following injunction OF the Constitution
"No person held service labor 10 one state under
the laws hereof escaping INTO another shall m conse
guence OF any law or regulation herein 30 olschasel
from such service or labor bur sha he delivered ~ on
s siSa1' '"' parry WYNN SUN ~ ~ -
To avoid misapprehension, ! think it proper to
say, that, in my opinion, this provision Of the
Constitution, like all the others, should be faith
fully enforced. Perhaps no portion OF the people
was entirely satisfied with every provision in the
Constitution, yet all were deemed essential to
secure its adoption. They all now constitute
parts Of the instrument, and should be alike
obeyed in spirit and in letter. 1t is with this
feeling that consider the provision above quoted,
and thus regarding it, it seems 10 me obvious,
that the main, if not the only purpose OF those
who framed il, was, to prohibit each State from
passing laws which should release from labor
chose legally held 70 il in another State. Doubt
less the difficulty in the mind Of those who drew
this section, and the one they primarily intended
10 guard against was the necessity Of preserving
the rights Of Shareholders in some OF the States
when other States should, from time 20 time, see
the wisdom and humanity Of abOlishing slavery.
They intended that each State should abolish
slavery for itself and not for its neighbOrs, and
that when a State did so abolish slavery, II
should not pass any law which would interfere
with the right Of a STAKEHOLDER 70 pursue and re-
take his slave in such free State. | doubt whe
ther there was any absolute necessity for legisla
ton, either on the part of the State or General
Government, TO enforce this provision. The right
Of reception without breachkof the peace was,
In my judgement, the remedy looked TO and Sc
cured by the prohibition. Ii was intended that
whatever legal relation in regard TO the oOhga'
tion of service two perBOns bore to each other by
the laws of the State in which they both resided,
that relation should not be destroyed by the es'
cape into another state Of the one owing service.
But whether the States might or might not le-
gislate to carry out this provision, IL seems to me
entirely clear, that no power over the subject
il given 10 Congress, either expressly or by inn
phcation- and it is 10 me inexphcable how those
who are no abstemiOus in the exercise OF power
over the subject Of slavery by Congress, as 70 de-
ny the authority to prohibit slavery IN the District
OF Columbia, or in the territories Of the United
States should have been able to hnd not only al
thOrty for Congress TO legislate IN regard TO
fugitves from service, but an authority 80 exclu-
sive as 70 GUST the States This is one OF the
triumphs Of modern ingenuity, aud 50 Tar as the
authority TO legikate upon the subject OF fugtlves
from service is concerned, those who claim it for
Congress have on their side the decision of the
Supreme Court Of the United States on pre-
vious act in the case OF Prog VS.. The Com
sonWealh of Pennsylvania By this decision,
Judges in determining the 6ueatop of authority
would probably DO concluded. But in popular
discussion of the propriety OF law with view
TO its repeal or modification, presume we are az
Ill. aNrrrg 70 nj
the Supreme Court Even the executive and
legislative departments deny ITS authority TO
bind them The Supreme Court decided that the
Alien and Sedition law was constitutional and
Mathew Lyon was imprisoned under It, The
President, Mr. Jefferson, decided that 1t was not,
and hardened Mr.. Lyon. The Supreme Court de-
cided that Congress could constitutonally charter
Bank of the United States and that the pro-
priety and necessity Of doing so were % be
Judged by Congress The President General
Jack son, decided that such an act was unconstl'
tutionsl and vetoed it. With these examples
before me- feel authorized 70 express the opiRion
which entertain that the Fugitive Slave Bill is
unconstitutional because Congress have opOwer
to legislate upon the subject. II
- But to those who regard the decision OF the
Supreme Court as conclusive Il is important 10
consider other objections to the act Concedng
She power TO Congress TO legisate upon this sub
iect think the act ia question is unconstitutional
because il does not give the person seized trlal
hy Jury at the place where he is 50 seized and
before he is put in the custody of the claimant
with warrant 10 transport him. The error sc
Ii seems 20 me- with great respect In the leglsla
ton OF Congress upon this SUBJECT arises nom con-
founding two classes OF cases winch have no
analogy with, or resemblance % each other.
alluds to the surrender Of fLgitives from justice
and the seizure o. persons held TO service. A
bare statement Of the provision as 90 tugltlves
from Justice will show this Ii is IN these words
"A person charged III suy State with treason felony or
other crime who shall dee nom Justice and DO foaad 10
another State shall demand Of the executive Huhou
~ Of the Stale hom which be led be delivered up 10 De
removed TO the Stale having Jurisdiction OF he crime
The striking differences between the two cases
are,
lsi The party seized under he lssi section 10 charged
with having committed offence gsnSt the puhh-s ia
SILVA rom service bSs committed no odease agans the
public Itis no crime thluk by The laws Of 6eOrgs Viz
sins or South Carolina 10 escape from service and he
laws provide no punishment to- q Ia Marysnd slsw to
would Of course DO for fugitive non justice not Tor
MgiIive from service
ecutve suhoriy Of the Sseea person held 10 serVcels
claimed by private individual ., -, ,.. SIT.
having Jurisdiction OF he crime The person hed 10 ser
vice 70 70 be taken wherever The claimant pleased an
Il sAys shA aa1hori1e the removal Of he fugitive from
service 10 lhe place whence be sd Bug the Constitution
cs result fbs wsTsn gives We Ss p.y sS no S
10 insst upon being carried 10 the place whence ne aed
New.York slave, who Is alleged 10 have escaped from
his master At Charleston ace nothing prevent ais
shipped for Brazil and certainly nothing prsvsnt hs
being sold In any SSyehOldng Stale through which he ay
be carried. and Il 10 nOtoTOusy The practice Ser exhibit
Ing recovered slave 10 the other slaves o. plantation
awsrnng to sell and remove him TO o1her parts The
ffame Of the Constitution saw no necessity for removing
them 10 the State whence hey ned They were no. IKE
rimlnAs TO be ed for 0fence where had been
mitted. They had committed no offence. They had no
occasion 10 De ed where, and have never beard that
asave who restored TO his master was 10 any way
publicly proceeded sgsinss for escaping
These glazing distinctions between fusitives
from iustice and fuSitives from service, seem 10