Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1851-06-05

Daniel Webster VS. Daniel Web
ster and the Constitutionality
of the Fugitive Bill"

Daniel webster VS.. DANIEL Wep-
ster and the Constitutionality
of the Fugitive Bill"
In March, 1850, Daniel Webster said in
the Senate "The Constitution says to
the STATES that they shall deive: up fugi-
tiyes from service" 81 have always tho't
that the Constitution addressed itself to the
States themselves" 9 1t seems to me that
the State itself, in obedience to the Con-
stitution, shall cause him to be delivered
up" II have always been of opinion that
it was an injunction upon the States them
selUes. That is my judgement. l have al
ways entertained that opinion, and | enter
tain it now"
The decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Prigg, reversing the decision
of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, was
given eight or nine years before the speech
of March 7. Mr. Webster had time for
deiberalion. And he four times declares
his opinion against that decision, deemng
it opposed to the plain import of the Con
sttution. In that decision the U. S. Su.
preme Court held that State officers were
not bound to deliver up lugitives-that it
belongs to the U. S. Government to do it.
From that decision Mr.. Webster strongly
utters his dissent, four times declaring that
the Constitution committed this business to
the States, not to Congress. Since no con-
current jurisdiction is given to Congress in
this matter, it has none, and cannot assume
il, because prohibited by the Constitution,
which says, (Amendment lOth) " The pow
ers not delegated to the United States i. e.
Congress by the Constitution, nor prohlb'
tied by it TO the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the peoFIc."-
This restricts Congress to the powers del
cgatcd." Now see the only passage touch
ing this matter 1t is Art. A, sec.2: " No
person held to service or labor in one State,
under the laws thereof of that State es-
Gaping into another State shall, in con-
sequence of any law or regulation therein
of that State] be discharged from service
or labor, but shall be delivered up by that
State on claim of the party to whom such
service or labor may be due" Here is not
word implying that Congress may act on
the case. No grant to Congress of power
to touch it. But by enjoining it on the
States, in the total absence of concurrent
Jurisdiction, the Constitution has prohibit
ed Congress from acting on it. Hence its
act in passing that bill is unconstitutional
Congress has transcribed its commission
Congress man not assume authority, Ell
Their over matters committed to the States
or over those reserved to them. Its pow
ers are confined to business expressly COM
mtted to it, As Mr. Fillmore Justly sale
in his message of December last, " The
government Of the U. S. is limited. 1t is
confined to the exercise of powers express
y granted, and such others as may be nee
essary for carrying those powers into effect
Over the objects and subjects entrusted t.
congress, its legislative authority is supreme
But here that authority ceases" Now a
the pow err to enact this bill is neither "eI
pressly granted" nor necessary for car
rying those powers into effect" it is clea
Congress has no such power. Nor can
be claimed as embraced in "the Eoregc
ing powers" Art l S. ST Is, for the onl
passage ever cited, l. e. Art. A S. 2,
is not embraced in them, since it occur
afterwards.
The cited passage(Ar Nbars the State
from dischargng thesaid persons
also requires the States to deliver them no
as property, but as debtors. For who
required to deliver them but the State has
ing them and Forbidden to discharge them
II, then, as Mr. Webster says, this is requi
red of the States, the assumption of thi
business by Congress, is not merely uncor
stitutional; it is uSmpation, and accordn
to Mr. Fillmore, ought to be resolutely an
firmly resisted"
This could not have escaped the ken {
the defender" Yet, though he so plain
ly declared the utter unconsttutionaity {
that decision of the Supreme Court, and @
course the unconstltutionality of that en-
actment which was based Oh that decision
the " Fugitive Bill yet he has since sal
that do not know man whose opinio
is worth anything, who thinks the bill III
constitutional" The reader may iudg
whether Senator Webster's, or Secretar
Webster's opinion is worth most.
Is it not singular that this defender,
after inveighing so often, so strongly an
so justly against that decision, should st
quietly acquiese in this obvious outrage {
the Constitution Did he not know thu
such decision, though standing for a tim
but liable to be reversed by subseque1
courts, was no valid basis for a Congre,
sional act, which not only assumes powe
not delegated, but also outrages mqny
its clearest provisions! Nay, he not onl
acquiesces in this decision which he show
to be contrary to the Constitution, but b.
hold the wonder he pleads that decisio
and that only, as the basis for the bill !
Men who see, think and reason, will yo
follow such a leader