Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-05-22
CAN A STATE PROTECT THE LIB.
ERTf OF ITS INnlBITANTSl

ERTf OF ITS INnlBlTANTSl
[coScLupKD.
We have claimed LIST, that the fugitive slave
acts Of 1913 and 1850 are limited strictly to the
claim Of IN ister to his slave who has escaped (;
and tina, is therefore the precise lease" OF which
federal judges or commissioners have exclusive
jurisdiction. In this respect the two acts are l.
IDENTICAL, and we shall show that the Supreme
Court of the L. S. so construed the act of 1888
in the Prirg case. We claimed I'd, hat the
Constitution limits the claim Of the master solely
to his slave who had escaped, and forbids the
states soe,y from dischargng such fugitive Stare
These are the leading principles. We inferred
that if the acts Of Congress had gone beyond
these limits in any respect, those acts would be
unconstitutional and null, and could not be per
mitted 70 add new rights to masters, or to ubrdge
the rights Of the states. But the Constitution
and the laws Of Congress both ooncuTing IN max
ing a claim Of Gugiiire sidus BY his master the
tease" and consequently limiting the exclusive
jurisdiction of federal judges or commissioners
to that precise case" II follows that, until such
case is shoirn. the reserved and sovereign
power Of the state, for the protection Of any Of
its inhabitants arrested as slaves, is not only
pie but unquestionable. Are these "leading
principles" correct ? Is the claim of a f,gi-
fire s'dve the case" provided for ? Is 1t simply
figitirs Stare that the state is forbidden to eds
oharge'-in the judgment Of the u. Supreme
Court in the case Of Prigg If so, there is an
end of all controversy. That 1t is so, we assert,
and shall endeayor to show by the decision IL
self
The Z. S. Supreme Court on hs case Of Prigg.
No one can examine the opinions OF the iudg
os in that critically, without observing that,
whether speaking Of the powers Of Congress,
the rights of the master, or the restriction Of the
Constitution upon the states, the judges carefully
limited their opinions and language to flgi!ius
Siares,-to none but fugitive slares,-and TO these
mainly as affected by the particular case before
them. The only exceptions, that we have no.
ticed, are in the opinions Of Chief Justice fancy
and Judge Wayne Southern menu and both of
thes, 20 TO confirm, to the fullest extent, the
doctrine for which we contend. This careful
limitation Of the court to .fgiipe slaves is the
more noticeable, because the court processes TO
give the legal construction of the Constitution
and it is worthy of remark that the fugitive slave
clause was contemplated IN its relation to the
preceding clause, on the delivery of persons
charged" with crime. Judge Story docs not in
so many words say that there is a broad dstnc-
ton between the two clauses but while it is
palpabe that all persons enlarged" with crime
must be delivered up, the decision of the court
is-noi that all persons claimed as fugitive slaves,
but-all fugitive Slares claimed by their masters
must be delivered up.
The Intent ofhe Constitution.
Its true design was 10 guard against the doc
trnes and principles prevalent in the non-slave
holding states, by preventing them from inter
NEEDING with. or obs,ructlng or abolishlng Tie
Tlg'ds ettle ooners Of stdUts." -l6 Peters, OIL
Interpretation Of The clause.
"How then, are we to interpret the language
Of tie clause The true answer is, IN such
manner as consistently with the words shlll full
ly and completely etfectuate the whole objects of
1.-THE clause manfestly contemplates the ex-
istenee of positive, unqualified right on the
part Of the olDRer Of The sldps, which no state law
or regulation can IN any way qualify, regulate
control or restrain-Any state law or stale regu-
lutlun, which interrupts, limits, delays, or post
PONIES the right Of the oiraer to the immediate
possession Of the stare &c, operates. pro tanto,
discharge Of the SLAVE" go It. Peters, 6l2
The owner OF aJHgiiire Stare has the same
night to seize and take him in state to which
he has escaped or fled that he had in the state
from which he escaped."-i6 Peters, $40.
As 10 the " claim" and the power of Congress /:
at Is plain, then, that where a claim is made
by HE gunner, out Of possession for The dciirery Of
sloUs It must be mtde, If at all, against some
person and inasmuch as the right is right of
property, capable Of being recognized and asser.
ted by proceedings before court of justice, be-
tween parties adverse 10 each other, It consti
tutes, IA the strctest sense controversy be-
tween the parties, and a case arising under the
Constitution" of the United States, within the
express delegation of judicial power given by
that instrument. Congress, then, may call that
power into activity for the very purpose of CIV
ing effect TO that right and If so, then It NAV
prescribe the mode and extent in which il shall
be applied, and how, and under what circum-
stances the proceedings shall afford complete
protection and guaranty to the right"-ld Pc
tiers, GIG.
This is very strong language, certainly, but
analyze ii, and to what does it amount? The
intent was to protect the right of the owner to
his slaUe-not TO protect man-steaers. The
clause gives The opner right to his siauf, which
the states cannot qualify restrain--not that it
cannot restrain kidnappers. The states are ut
,crly prohibited from interrupting, delaying, or
limiting the right Of The oioner 10 his slaue-not
that IT cannot compel him to wait until it is shown
that the prisoner is somebody's slave The own
er has right to seize his fugitive Stare not I'M
less Ne IS a fugiuye-and, above all not to seize
freeman Of Vermont Nor do we subject the
language Of the Court 10 forced constructions,
OF constructors not fairly and plainly warmed
by other declarations in tbs case of Prigg.
The brief statement of Judge Story, of the
ground on which the Pennsylvania law was con
demned by the Court, shows tins
The act Of the Legislature Of Pennsylvania
is unconstitutional aud void. 1t purports to pun
lsh a public offence against the state The reyy
act Of setting and remopiag Stare by his muster,
which the Constitution of the United States was
designed 10 justify and uphold lie Peters, SAB.
To the same effect is the remark of Judge
Baldwin
Justice Baldwin eoaeuued that the act of
Pennsylvania was Unconstitutional inasmuch as
the stdrsry Of the person removed leas admitted.