The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-08

Our readers doubtless familiar with the provisions
and with the history Of the fugveslave law OF 1885,
but there are other enacnents which have not perhaps
received due consideration and knowledge OF which
is essentially necessary proper understanding of the
legislative action on that subject
1t is unnecessary TO repeat the provision OF the cons
tuition requiring the delivery OF fugves from justice and
fugitives from labor We will, therefore, only remark
that is clear from the history of the earlier days OF the
republic that no collision between the State and federal
officers and authorities apprehended The duty to
deliver up was plain and imperative, was taken
for granted that all good citizens in the savehodng as
well as in the slavehoding States would aid in
ting the constitutional provision in that behalf II was
taken for granted ALSO that all the State authores-legs
ative executive, and judiciary-woud not only abstain
from throwing mpedments in the way Of the consttu
ton, but would give willing and Jealous cooperation
in furnishing remedy for the RICH, specially recognised
by the fundamental law. The law Of 1898 was passed.
and in the early periods OF our history under that law it
was so well understood that fugitive from labor would
be delivered up that there were no attempts to escape
into non slaveholdng States. southern gentleman
might travel through New England without fear. although
he had his slave with him. He might reside for
months in Boston without apprehension; for then the
feelings which engendered by the revolution had
not been weakened, and spurious and bastard phan-
,hropy had obtained the control Of the people OF Mas
sachusetts Time wore on. contemplate faction
arose in the North-composed of men the cankers OF
calm world and long peace"which sought its food in
mischief AT first this faction looked upon with
contempt, in Boston; but in the progress of time
the contemplate faction became strong enough give
decisive vote in many elections. The wing party-,he
real heir the cenrzing doctrines OF the old federal
ists-sav that there barrier OF constitutional
principle to separate them from the abolitoniss They
saw Also that the vote Of the abohtoniss small it
was would be available in many party contests But in
order to induce abohtonsm to into the expanded
capacity OF the wing party, it necessary 10 offer an
inducem.nt The wings, being in minority. were not
reuctan, to offer that inducement and to give aid
tenance, and encourage men, TO abolition principles
Blu, to return to sheep. The law OF 1893 re-
Garded night and proper law although the princi
Plies Of that law were identical with the provisions of the
law OF 1850. No fault was found with them. No one
contended that il violated the constitutional guarantee
relative to the writ Of habeas corpus, or the right to
Trial by Jury Blu, after awhile this law became unpopu-
lar Some con,ended that it ought no, TO be enforced
others conended that the States ought not to be required
to enforce it, These latter were honest They admitted
the fact tina, the law should be enforced but they called
upon the federal government to furnish the machinery by
which the enforcement should be accomplished. This,
under the circumstances the best that could be done
The naked fact tina, abolition excitement had made itself
felt in northern State legislatures strong argument
in favor OF the general governments taking the matter
into its own especial keeping The Supreme Court under
these circumstances decided that the law should be
ecu,ed not by State but by federal officers This decision
was made in emanating from a .slaveholding
State and willingly acquesced in by the southern
States because they that it was better to rely the
federal government, over which they had some CONTROL
than on the State governments, which they had no
control.
AT the time this decision Of the Supreme Court was an.
nounced it wa. considered final adjudication OF the
subject |, pointed out the proper. appropriate. and
practical remedy for plain, explicit, and unques.
toned constitutional righ, The southern States
auenty acquiesced in the decision But how have they
been rewarded Did Congress promptly provide the
cessay machinery for carrying out the law Of 1893 BY
no means The subject delayed from time to time
until the last session OF Congress- when the fugitive
slave bill was enacted-a bill which, as we have said
many times BEFORE only provided the means Of executing
the law of 1923. What is the resui Why, the very
States which commended that the whole was under
the control OF Congress- and which denied to their off.
GERS the right to interfere in executing the law Of l7o3
now reverse their position, and claim State jurisdiction
over the matter and require their State authorities to
take eognzance OF law OF Congress for the purpose Of