The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-04-11

the government prescribed By The Fundamental law, the
same rs The other wothe legislative and The execa'
But besides this mass of judicial power belonging to
the established courts OF government there no neon
sidsIable portion OF power IN Its nature ndlcialuasi-
uhicia-nvesed, from time TO time, by legislative au'
thorly IN individuals, separately or collectively, ior
particular purpose aud limtod time.
Tins distinction in respect to judicial power will be
found running through the administration OF all govern
ments and has been acted upon in this since ts founda
ton familiar case occurs in the institution OF comms.
siones ior settling land claims and other claims against
the government, e Statutes at Large, 32i-i40)
strong illustration will be fouad in this State under
the old constitution OF l777 BY that justices OF the peace
were appointed by the council OF appointment and held
their offices during the pleasure OF that body Yet the
powers possessed by most magistrates were conferred by
acts Of The legislature upon the aldermen oil cities, who
were elected by the people. But need not pursue the
subject a. the question must be regarded as settled by
the case referred TO. 8.a3
founded upon the seventh amendment TO the constitution,
which provides that "in suits at common law, where
the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the
right OF trial by jury shall be preserved"
The summary mode Of hearing and deciding upon the
claim 10 the service of the fugitive prescribed by the re.
cent act is the ha prescribed BY the act OF l7e3
be clearly constitutional in all its leading provisions
The proceeding contemplated by the clause OF the con-
sulion in question is not suit at common law, within
the meaning OF that amendment II settles conclusively
no right OF the claimant to the service OF the fugve ex
cep for the purpose OF the removal TO the State IRON
which he or She fed--no than The proceeding in
the OF fugitive from Justice for the purpose OF re-
moya, settles his guilt The question OF right to the
service in the one case and OF guilt in the Other IS open
to final hearing and trial in the States from whence
they have escaped. After the arrival Of the fugitive
there, the certificate IS no longer OF any au'hoy or ev
deace of any right
Indeed SO obviously does the constitution contemplate
summary hearing and decision in the matter, that the
counsel for the State of Pennsylvania, in the refer
red TO, did not make point or call seriously in ques
Ihave now gone over the several provisions of this
law and some OF the more maeria questions arising ou
Of il and il am not greatly mistaken have shown thai
all the leading features of tall The principles involved
have been either confirmed by the only tribunal competent
to pass upon them or are so obvious that no lawyer
think entertain well grounded doubt about them
and that Congress has but obeyed imperative cons,tu
tional obligation in It's enactment.
THE LAW MUST oBEYED,
1t is law, therefore, which every citizen is bound 10
obey, and the public authorities 10 enforce with all the
powers conferred upon them by the government
The leg slaures of of the States have passed
laws bearing directly upon this provision OF the consu
uon, and upon is execution IN the mode prescribed by
Congress. SO far these laws in conflict with the
provisions of the question, tend 10 obsiruc aud
embanass its execution they unconstitutional and
utterly void and can afford no protection against ITS pen
ates The law OF Congress is paramount and must be
obeyed. 4.
Opinions expressed in the case of Prigg vs. the
Common wealth of Pennsy lvana, that the power OF Con-
gess to provide the mode OF surrenderlng up the fugl-
tive under the constitution exclusive and that the
States disabled from acting at all the subject
Others that the power concurent and, although the
States could pass law in conflict with the act OF Con-
gess il competent for them TO pas laws in aid OF IT,
and furthennce of the execution OF the constitutional
provision. ~ t
II is important here express any opinion upon
these different views for, whether the the other
shall finally prevail the result is the same In either
view, law in conflict with the act OF Congress is void,
and OF effect.
NORTHERN LEGISLATION AND SOUTHERN IMPRESSIONS.
1t is not to be disguised that the legislation OF
most, not all. OF the northern States lending TO en-
barrass and in some instances 10 annu the pro-
yst nf he actO hAs stro
southern brethren with the conviction that these States
have resolved TO throw off that constitutional obligation
They take il for granted-and IL dc cult 10 deny The In
feencehat the acts reflect the general sentiment o the
people the subject, and that must have become deep
and abiding to be sufficiently powerful to mould the State
legislation Ii is this leg saiion, than occasional
rioous assemblies in resistance Of the law, that has
forced them 10 the question: whether the Union with this
provision of the fundamental law rejected and con.
temned-a provision vital TO The rights and interests OF
that portion and without which the Union would never
have been formed-is to them blessing or curse; a
questioned rased not by dsaeced and 'umultuous as
semblages, often very equivoca evidence OF the real
sentiment OF the public mind, but by the people OF the
States through their organized governments question
examined and discussed in the mode and through the
that examined and tina, Of entering into
the Union at the adoption OF the constitution.
DISSOLUTION or THE UNION
This question has been raised by fifteen States OF the
coniederacy, six OF whom original parties TO the
compact Ii has been examined and considered and
again by the governors in their public messages by
the representatives in their legislative halls by the people
their primary assemblies and by the press and they
have 10 the resoluiioD-one and al-hai II this
hostile legislation IS carried into effect and the constiu
tonal obi CATION longer adhered TO by their northern
brehren bu, thrown of, diHegarded and contemned the
Union il longer blessing and should be dissolved
that the abrdgato OF material provision oil the iun
danen,a law is destructive of the compact and the por
ton OF the Union for whose benefit II adopted, and
whose rights and interests thereby endangered is abb
solved from its allegiance This believe TO be the set
tied conviction and sentiment OF fifteen States o this
Union and presents an issue OF the and
one that neither be evaded suppressed
issue which the northern States must determine
for themselves That laws exist the statute books oil
mos II not all Of them, in conflict with the act OF Con-
gess and repugnant this provision OF the constitution,
is matter of history That the enforcement OF these
laws would be virtual abrogation of the provision, IS
be denied II remains for these States TO determine
whether any attempt shall be made TO enforce them
whether they 10 remain on The satutebook dead
letter, or be repealed. .r@ 1861
These are questions OF transcenden import, for the
determination OF them, in my humble Judgment involves
the perpeulty OF the Union. I
am aware that opinions are entertained, and doubt
less, honestly entertained that the Union has not been
at any time in danger, and is not now, wish these
opinions well founded My deep conviction and belief
that II depends at this moment upon the confidence
inspired by the late proceedings in Congress, and by the
indications OF public sentiment in the free States, that
this constitutional obligation will be hereafter executed
in the faith and spirit with which it was entered into
that the friends OF the Union in the savehoding States
maintain their ascendency and the allegiance OF
their States by the confidence thus inspired and that in
destructive OF that confidence, and OF all hope OF the
eculion OF the obligation would not be in their power
to maintain their position and may add, they would
not II they could
IL THE UNION IN DANGER NOT
n any one supposes that is Tnion ran be pre eyved