The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1851-04-24
LETTER PROM JOHN VAN buren, TO TIE
MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION.
M + p. blanchard :

1
ult, inviting me to be present and address a Con-
vention Of the people of Massachusetts, who are
opposed to the Fugitive Slave Law, on the sth
inst, at Boston. My eng gements here are such
as to prevent my complying with your invitation
but can readily respond to the request which
accompanies it, to be informed, by letter, of my
sentiments respecting the law referred TO.
| The act in question processes to carry out the
following Injunction Of the Constitution
@No person held to service or labor in one
State, under the laws thereof, escaping into
another shall, in consequence Of any law or regu-
la.ion therein be discharged from such service or
labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may be
duen
To avoid misapprehension, fthink it proper to
say that in my opinion, this provision OF the
Constitution, like all others, should be faithfully
enforced. Perhaps no portion of the people was
entirely satisfied with every provision in the Con-
sttution, 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 re-
garding it, it seems 10 me obvious that the main,
| if not the only purpose of those who framed 1t,
was, to prohibit each State from passing laws
which should release from labor those legally held
to it in another State. Doubtless the difficulty
| In the mlDu OF tnO5e VINO ureW luis ecCtlVui anu
the one they primarily intended to guard against,
was the necessity of preserving the rights of slave
holders in some of the States, when other States
should from time to time, see the wisdom and hu-
mainly of aboishing slavery. They intended that
each State should abolish slavery for itself aud
not for its neghbors, and that when a State did
SO abolish slavery, it should not pass any law
which would interfere with the right of a slave
holder to pursue and retake his slave in such free
State | doubt whether there was any absolute
necessity for legislation, either the part Of the
State or General Government, to enforce this pro-
vision The right Of reception without breach
of the peace was, in my judgment, the remedy
looked to and secured by the prohibition. 1t was
| intended that whatever legal relation in regard
| to the obligation Of service two persons bore to
each other by the laws of the State in which they
both resided, that relation should not be destroy
ed by the escape into another State Of the one
owing service.
But whether the States might or might not le-
gslate to carry out this provision it seems to me
entirely clear, that no power over the subject is
given to Congress, either expressly or by implca-
tion-and it is to me imexplicable, how those who
| are so abstemious in the exercise Of power over
the subject Of slavery by Congress, as to deny the
authority to prohibit slavery in the District of
Columbia, or in the Territories Of the United
States should have been able to find not only
authority for Congress to legislate in regard to
fugitves from service, but an authority SO exclu-
sive as to Gust the States! This is one of the
triumphs of modern ingenuity and so far as the
authority to legslate upon the subject of fugitves
| 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 a pre-
vious act, In the case Of Prigg vs.. The Common
meath of Pennsylvania. By this decision, Judges
in determining the question Of authority would
l-ls IL NJ
sion Of the propriety of q law with view to it's
repeal or modification, presume we are at liberty
! to believe in opposition to q decision of the
Supreme Court Even the Executive and Legs-
lative departments deny its authority to bind
them. The Supreme Court decided that the Alien
and Sedition law was constitutional and Matthew
Lyon was imprisoned under it, The President,
Mr.. Jefferson, decided that it was not, and par
doned Mr.. Lyon. The Supreme Court decided
that Congress could consttutionally charter a
Bank of the United States, and that the propriety
and necessity of doing SO were to be judged by
Congress. The President, General Jackson, de-
cided that such On act unconstitutional, and
vetoed it. With these examples before me, feel
authorized to express the opinion which enter
tain, that the Fugitive Slave Bill is unconstitu
tionsl, because Congress have no power to legis-
late upon the subject.
But to those who regard the decision Of the
|
consider other objections to the act. Conceding
the power Of Congress to legislste upon the SUBJ
ject think the act In question is unconsttution-
al because it does not give the person seized trial
by jury at the place he is so seized and before
he is put in the custody of the claimant with
warrant to transport him. The error, as it seems
to me, with great respect, in the legislation of
Congress upon this subject arises from confound-
ing two classes of cases which have no analogy
with or resemblance to each other allude to
the surrender of fugitives from justice and the
seizure of persons held to service. bare state
ment of the provision as to fugtives from justice
will show this IL is in these words
| GA person charged in any State, with treason,
felony, or other crime who shall fee from justice,
and be found in another State, shall, on demand
Of the Executive authority of the State from which
he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the
State having jurisdiction Of the crime"
The striking differences between the two cases
| are
Ist The party seized under the last section Is
charged with having committed an offence against
the public fugitiue from service has committed
| no offence against the public. Ii Is no crime,
think, by the laws of Georgia, Virginia, or South
| Carolina, to escape from service and the laws
provide no punishment for it, In Maryland, q
law to that effect has recently been passed, but
demand under it would of course be for
fugitive from justice, not for fugitive from SER
vice.
I'd. The demand under the last section is
made by the Executive authority of the State-a
person held TO service is claimed by private in
dividual
81. The fugitive from justice is 10 be removed
to the State having jurisdiction over the crime.
The person held TO service Is TO be taken wherev-
er the claimant plesses. | am aware that the act
Of Congress provides warrant, which, 1t says,
shall authorize th0removal of the fugitive from
service to the place whence he fed. But the
| Constitution makes no such provision, nor do
believe 1t contemplated such result. The war
rant gives the party seized no right to insist upon
being carried TO the place whence he fed, or upon
remaining there when he arrives IL be is seized
| in New York ms a slave, who is alleged to have
escaped from his master at Charleston, ! see
nothing to prevent his being shipped for Brazil,
and certainly nothing TO prevent bis being sold in
any slaveholding State through which he may be
carried and 1t Is VIGOROUSLY the practice, amer
exhibiting a recovered slave to the other slaves
on plantation as q warning, to sell and remove
him 10 other parts The trainers OF the Consti-
tuition saw no necessity for removing them TO the
State whence they fed They were not, like
criminals, TO be tried for an offence where II bad
been committed They had committed no offence
They had no occasion to be tried anywhere, and
have never heard that slave who was restored
to his master was in any way publicly proceeded
against for escaping
These glaripg distinctions between fugitives
from Justice and fugitives from service seem to
have been overlooked by the Congress Of 1893,
which first legslated upon the subject. The act
of that year grew out Of the rsfassl Of Virginia to
surrender three persons who were demanded by
the Executive Of Pennsylvania, as charged with
the crime of kidnapping free man in the latter
State. The Executive Of Virginia refused to
L - r.
comply with this request, although the Constitu-
ton made II his duty on the ground that no legis
| lstion had ever prescribed the manner In which