Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-05-15

historically /, can he shown that the sole pur-
pose was to give the master precisely the same
right to take bis fugitive stare by tins clause,
he would have to take his .ftgitire horse by anoth-
er clause of the same section. The intent was
that he might take either, wherever he could find
either, without process of any sort. Should he
take another mans horse, nobody doubts that he
might be cast in trover before the state courts ;
or, should the circumstances warrant, he could
be held for theft, and punished On convection
His horse he might lawfully take but If he take
another mans, il must be at his risk. His Stare
he may take should he take fireman, he does
it at his risk, and the state may both rescue the
man from his hands, and punish the alleged mas
ter under the statute against kidnapping This
we say was the intent, and is within tho fair
meaning Of the constitution. To 20 beyond this,
and assert that the master has right to claim"
any body else or, even farther. and use the con-
stitution rs a shield for those hyeuas in human
form, who take the advertisements of runaway
slaves for descriptions and 90 about the country
seeking out free nun who may possibly be con-
vertcd into slaves, for no other reason than thit
they come tolcrably near some fugitive slave IN
age, size. and features to assert this, we say
Is gross abuse Of the intent and meaning of
the Constitution; to aoi upon this principle Is an
offence against Liberty richly worthy ui stripes
and the dungeon. Far. far be the evil day when
Vermont shall be so utterly false to its duty to
its own citizens, and so false to the Constitution
and TO Liberty, to tolerate such an Of, fence
"Tha offence is rank, and smells to heaven"
3. As to the restriction upon the states ::
1t is so Ell not to discharge q fugitive Stare 10y
any law or regulation" That De- ,ha entire ex-
ten. Of the restriction. An other power Is re-
serUed TO the state including foil power to pro-
tect It's own free inhabitants, (tlusa are free who
were once slaves and have regdined liberty In
any mode except by escaped against the false
claims OF pretended masters or men-steaIers-
The resttcuon being limited by the express
terms Of tha constitution, the reserved power OF
the state, for every other purpose than the one
specifically named, is ample-embucng not
merely haboas corpus, trial by jury and the Aht
of appeal. bot every other process known to tue
common law, or which a sovereign stite may de-
vise Those who hold that freeman may be
held to answer precisely as q fugitive slave may
be held do most palpab0y erieni the constitution
al restriction upon the states. no matter by
vbl, plea th.s is attempted to be justified, it is
enough 10 say, the Constitution 10 bids IT, Nor
do we rely merely upon the oxphc lanemgo Of
clause ., see. >. ort I as orbdd.ag this 1'he
next preceding clause IS that an persons cAs4ged'
with crmc shall be delivered up &c Now ii
al PRISONS ciainef as siarcs are liable 10 extra.
dton why. in the nane of common sense sc
ask, was not language used to express lltt fact,
precisely ns in the case of alleged criminals :--
We infer thar broad distinction was intended
between the two things distinction hich ma
terially affects the rights Of the accused and the
power of ihe state.
!. As TO The power of Congress- The clause
coutans no express gnmi Of asy poice- nFqierer
10 Congress Whatever power Is derived, is by
implication merely. We say, you cannot imply
power in Congress to extend the RICH, Of the
master, or the restriction of the Constitution up
on the states beyond the limits expressed. Con-
gress, then. derives no power from this clause to
"""ii~1 HiAFNHvi"Via 40 'eiHe 'tt"'tN anu CtA-lii
them as slaves; nor to restrict the power Of the
state TO protect the liberty OF ITS niabitant.-
Especially We insist Congress cannot ebridge
''' r's"'7 81 hAoeas corpus rlal by Jury and APP
P'al--ueoau'e j. restricted from so dong by
u'' H'.Ii' 3 N-A ana seventh amendments IN gen.
oil 'e'"'a ana 'Deie Is no power g''n'ou oy 'ne
Ius'u'' shave clause "hich takes TINS Particular
snolcc' or' of those restrictions. Wmtoyer pow
e' chn pe lalriy implied from the clause, not ne
consistent with the reserved right OF ihe states
aud the restrictions OF the constitution is logu-
lie and proper II is held therefore, By the
Supreme Count Of the Z 3 that Congress may
regulate tle manner of proving ne eig'm ot q
nasf'r 10 las i"etre sere, and the mode of De-
hre7ng 'r. We do not contest that it is o.
power which must reside somewhere certanly.
Mr. Nehsters opinion is, that originally, it was
intended 90 be placed n az. siafes ne stlcs were
not only restricted from discharging. hat were 10
"dCiver uD' fugitive slaves on claim" of their
masters. Hence the ,cloie po,rer would h We
been In The states aud state courts suboc, 10 =
vision by the o. $. Supreme Court In these
latter DAYS that Court savs Co,,yres, NAV ram.