The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-14

deainst the acts of Congress Of February H. i783 and
September Is, ls50-By Lysandsr Sposnsr.
One can hardly fail to be astonished the ignorance,
atuy cowardice, corruption. that has ever induced
The North acknowledge, for an instant any conslltu
tonal obligation TO surrender fugitive slaves
The Supreme Court Of !hs United States n the pfgx
ton ever came under the adjudication OF that COURT
made no peience that the language itself OF the constu
ton afforded any justification for claim to fugitive
slave On the contrary they made the audacious and
a,rocious avowa that Tor the sole purpose of making
the clause apply TO slaves they would they
primary established and imperative rules Of legal inter-
petaton and be governed solely by the history Of mems
Intentions, outside OF the constitution Thus they say
"Before however we proceed 10 tho points inn
medatey before u.s. il may be WE'LL in order clear the
case difficulty, say tnat in tho exposition OF this part
sidera ons which appropriately and exclusively belong TO
il without laying down any rules o. ln.eiPreailon Of
when we look character of the constitution itseii
the objects which il seeks 10 attain the powers which
secures well the known historical fact that many OF
It's provisions were matters OF e9mp'on,se q Opposing
be applied to IT, which may not allow even II
docs no, positively dsmsnh %s"y a i
safest rule of interpretation after ALL VIII be found 10 DO to
ties and rights with ali The lights and aids Of contemporary
history and give the words OF each Just such opera
and force consistent with their Legitimate meaning as
may fairly secure and attain the ends proposed
Historically, il is well known that the Object OF this
States the complete rgh, and title of ownership in their
slaves properly. State in the Union into which
ss ry s'-iG Peter. sio-II.
Thus il will be that, the strength OF history
alone, they that many OF the provisions OF the
gard TO savery) but they admit that the words Of those
provisions cannot be made 10 express any such compo-
mise. they are Interpreted according e any uniform
more general nature" than the mere history oil those
particular clauses Hence order clear the Of
tthaD difficulty" they conclude that "perhaps the safest
~ all will he found be look
to the and objects OF the particular powers duties
and rights and all the lights and aids OF contemporary his
tory and to give the words OF each Just such opera
ton and force consistent with their legitimate meaning
as may fairly and attain the ends proposed"
The words consistent with their legitimate meaning
contain deliberate fasehood, thrown in BY the court
from no other motive than the hope to hide, in some
measure. the fraud they perpeatng II il had been
g consistent with the legitimate meaning OF the words OF
the clause apply them slaves there would have been
necessity for dscardng they did all the authorta
tive and inaexibe rules Of legal interpre alton, and
those rules and esor,ed history to make the clause
apply slaves, for other whatever than that
such meanning was not consistent with the legitimate
meaning Of the words" 1t is perfectly apparent that the
moment their eyes fell upon the words" OF the clause
they all that they contained no legal description OF
slaves.
intended TO throw their conduct, the plain Eng
sh of the language OF the court is this that history tells
that certain clauses OF the constitution were intended
to recognise and support slavery but lnasmuch as such
is the legal meaning OF the words Of those Clauses
interpreted by the established rules Of Interpretation. we
will Gin order clear the OF uhaD difficulty" just
discard those rules and perve the words make
them accomplish whatever ends history tells were in
tended 10 be accomplished BY them;
\ II only by such naked and daring fraud as this
that the court could make the constitution authorize the
recovery Of fugitive slaves
And what the rules OF Interpretation which they thus
discarded, '.in order to clear the OF difficulty and
make the constitution subserve the purposes OF slavery
One of them this Land down by the Supreme Court Of
the United States
/ -.
tention must be collected from its words-l2 Wheaton,,
Whou, an adherence 10 this rule, it is plain could
never know what was and wha, was not the consti-
Another rule is that universal one acknowledged by
all courts to be imperative that language must be con-
| strued strictly in favor OF liberty and justice
1 The Supreme Court OF the United States have laid down
| this rule in these strong terms:
Whcre rights are nftinged where fundamental princi-
piles ovehrown, where the general system OF the laws
i Is departed from Legislative Intention be expressed
with irresistible clesrnes to induce court OF Justice to
suppose design effect such objects -U"isd States
Ft,&sr, Craneh, 800.
/ Story delivered this opinion OF the court Tin the Prgg
case dscarng all other rules OF Interpretation, and
sorting to history make the clause apply TO slaves And
yet Judge has secuted more CONTEMPORARY than
Story the idea OF going out OF the words OF law or the
constitution, and being governed by what history may
say were the intentions OF the authors. lie says:
'such doctrine would be novel and absurd. II would
and destroy all the tests OF constitutional rights and
authorities. Congress could pass any law hout
1
then they ght be rcexambnbe Besides what possible
means be Of making such Investigations The
OF many Of the members may be-nay. must beu
tery unknown, and incapable Of ascerainment by
judicial other inquiry they be mixed in various
manners and degrees; they may be opposite 20 or wholly
nde pendent of each other The constitution would thus
depend pom processes utterly vague and incomprehens
BILE and the intent OF the legislature upon its VOID.
and acts the lea 'erptd would be conuadio'ed or ooea
ted by conjecture and paro decla sons, and heetng
cries. and heated gnations No government on earth
could for "A such foundation IL woud be
constitution OF sand heaped up and dissolved by the hur
and reur of every tide Of opinion Every act OF the egts
aure (aBd reason also, every clause Of the
consttuuou) therefore be judged Of from its objects
and intent, as they are Embodied in Its provisons"-2
Storp's Com, 53A
Also be says:
United Staies and IL submitted the whole
lust survey OF m provisions they sopd IN the itself
Opposite interpretations, and different explanations
eren provisions, may well be- presumed to have been
presented la derenf bodies, local objections,
TO local Aud there be certainty either
that the different State conventions, la adfyng the cons
tuition the uniform probation language,
that in single State convention, the same reason
ing prevailed with majority, much less with the whole Of
the supporters of IL. IL 4. be presumed that
the above mentioned and other causes, The
clauses always understood In the had
precisely the extent Of operation. Every member
ecesssry Judged for HIMSELF and the Judgment OF no
could ought be conclusive upon that OF others
Nothing but itself adopted by the people,
IL the Of the constitution TO be scersined not by
but by the probable meaning, to be gathered
by conectures from scattered documents from private
paper from the table.tak OF statesmen the
Jealous e1sgseraons OF others IL the constitution OF the
United be the only instrument which is be
Interpreted by what Is WRITTEN but by probable gueses
aside from the text What would be said OF interpreting