Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-12-04

/ pear to have been obtained not to subserre
The ends Of public justice, but to be used
I by the collision of Executive agents with
the creditor 10 coerce payment Of private
debt, and the whole transaction is thereby
rendered fraudulent and void.
T. The provision in the Constitution for
the extradnion of any Of our citizens, must
be strictly construed and, therefore, it ap-
plies only to those charged pith crime, who
shall flee from justice. Mr.. Childs was not
charged with crime willie in Maryland
= That Congress has no po,ccr under The
Constitution 10 tceisiate for the egfraditioa
Il IF .togiticcs frm justice.
The correspondent of the Toledo Repnb-
lican, gives the following account of Mr..
Chases argument:
lie critically examined the Constitution
and pointed out the cases and classes of cas-
rs in which power was granted to Congress
to leglsla,e, but in this respect, as well as in
respect to .tagitiUe siares, none was grant
ed, aud none could be implied
lie maintained, that the sole power of
Legislation in regard to fugitiyes from labor
and justice, rested ia the States, and that
any attempt on the part of Congress, to G.
Z
was usurpation ofpoweF not delegated by
the Constitution.
III support Of his argument on this point,
he read the following quotation from the
speech of Mr.. Rhett, of South Carolina. de-
! lne:cd IA Congress ia the Session Of 1850.
As a subslllute-aud exclusive subst-
tute for lhis preamble aud more efficient re-
dress under the Constitution, Congress has
usurped the power to legisatc upon tins
subject 1t has undertaken to thrust the
powers Of the General Government into tins
matter
The act Of 1893 keeps together, the two
subjects OF fugitive criminals aud fugitive
slaves. 1t undertakes To order the States
what they shall do with respect to the re-
covcry Of fugitive criminals, and provides by
It's legislation for the recovery of fugitive
slaves. See, sir, how it commands the goy.
ernors Of the States
1t shall be the duty of the Executive au
lhoriiy of the State or Territory to which
such person shall have fed, to cause him or
her TO be arrested or secured, and notice
Of the arrest to be given to the Executive
authority making such demand, or the agent
OF such authority appointed to receive the
fugltlves. and cause the fugitive TO be dellv-
cred to such agent when he shall appear.
/ This is the mandate as to fugitive criminals.
/ Congress the mere legislative agent of the
States for certain limited, specified purpos-
Is, without one word in the Constitution to
justify the arrogant assumption, not only
undertakes to leglslate for the States, but TO
dictate to their governors what they shall,
aud what they shall not do, TO carry out a
compact made between them"
lie also cited to the same effect the opin-
ion Of Chief Justice Uornblower, of New
Jersey, IN the case OF lIrlmsley, before the
Supreme Court Of that State in 1896, in
winch the learned Chief Justice distinctly
held the act OF 1893 tn be unconstitutional.
Mr. Chase commented with great force
upon the doctrines OF the Supreme Court,
as promulgated IN the cases of Prgg vs..
Pennsylvania, and Jones vs.. Van Zandt, aud
with gtelt power, urged the court to deliver
ITS own judgment aud lis own opinion upon
the constitutouality of this act.
He adyefted to the fearless stand taken by
the distinguished Jacks son, in administering
the constitution according to the dictates o
his judgment, under the soemnities of hi,
oath ofoilice, aud claimed that every Judge
Is bound 10 cOnstrue the constitution for
himself, and TO administer justice, not ac.
cording 10 the construction Of other courts
bot according to the letter and spirit of the
constitution.
The Prgg case had been relied on as au-
thorlty Ia sustain the process obtained by the
agents Of the State Of Maryland but MIR
Chase showed, that, admitting that case It
be law, the Governor, like Justice Of the
Peace, beng State officer, aud deriving
his power aud authority from the Constitu-
ton and laws of OHIO, had no power to is
sue a warrant or process unless authorized
to do So by the State, that Congress could
confer no authority upon him to issue
a warrant, aud none having been conferred
by the State the warrent was void.
Judge lloadley discharged the prisoner
Here Is an account of what he said Of the
right Of Congress to legislaie concerning
the delivery of lugltiyes from one State tc
another:
Extradtion IS only a matter of treat,
stipulation between two states. lie eXanin.
ed the question whether Congress had the
power 10 leglslale on The subject of fugitive.
from justice. lie referred to the Conled
eraIlon Of 81, and the practice under it
aud then compared 1t with that of the Con
stitu;ion.
He remarked that the States which haC
entered into the confederation were soyer
eIgn. They retain all the power not del
egaled to Congress. We cannot find tina
they have granted Congress any jurisdiction
over this matter. The fact that all tn,
States have legslated upon the subject o
extradItIon, is evidence that Congress does
not possess any power to legisla'e upon The
subject
Passing from this, he proceeded to en-
qure how far this mauer had been adludi
Gated by the highest tribunal IA the land
He then took Up the case Of Prog vs.. Penn
and Jones Us. Van Zaudt. The former
was where STAKEHOLDER lawlessly arrested
his slave and was imprisoned under a kid
mapping act. The Count held Justly, tina
the law of '93 contravened the Constitution
of the United States-but went further, ano
decided that Congress had right to legis
late, which his honor thought was obiieI
dicfd.
In the Van Zandt case the Court merel,
said the principle was decided in former
case, and refused to consider the natter
His Honor SAID he had no great respect fo