The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1851-11-12

VI 'no Oh'eu Otates IN the case VI Prikp
vs. the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, i6
refers SSs where the act Of Prigg in forci-
bly, removing slave from the Stale of Penn
sylvan a, without any legal process. whatev.
or, was declared to be no crime. bn, an ac,
sanctioned and warranted by the Constiiu.
ton Of the United States. The law of that
State. therefore, which pronounced such an
act to be felony, and by virtue of which a
conviction was regularly had was, by said
court, unanimously declared unconsiiiulion.
al and void, and the conviction in pursuance
thereof nullity.
Had saving clause been attached 10 the
act of last session, substantially like that at
tached to the act of Nov. /, l543, prohibit
ing the courts and the judicial and execu-
tive officers Of this State from taking cog
nizance oil or acting under the Sd section Of
the original fugitive slave law of 1893, and
aihXIng severe penalties tor being concerned
in any act thus prohibited, by which saving
clause Judges OF tho Circuit and District
Courts, Marshas and Deputy Marshals, and
all persons acting under the command or
authority of such Courts or Marshas, were
expressly exempted from the operation OF
the act, there would have been far better
ground for surprising that no direct interfer>
ence with the regular action OF the laws
and constituted authorities of the United
States was intended.
| For these reasons, yaur committee cannot
doubt that the act in question is in its main
provisions unconstitutional and void by rea-
son Of It's repugnance 10 the laws OF the
United States, and that it win lie so pro-
nounced by the appropriate Judicial iribu-
mails, whenever the question shall be proper
ly brought before them for adjudication. If
the committee are right in this opinion, al
though repeal Of the act is not strictly
deprive il OF efficacy, still a repeal is expe>
dent, as it may save public officers and 9TH
ers from mourning grave responsibilities for
a violation OF the Constitution and Laws of
the Federal Government, from which the
act in question could afford no protection.
Tie committee are perfectly aware that
there is another point of view in which this
subject has been regarded. Not lew pcr>
: sons, and among them men Of distinguished
talents, great learning, and elevated posi-
lions in the councils of the nation. contend
: that the two acts If Congress already refer
! red 10, intended to carry into effect the last
j.. clause Of Section 2, Article a. OF the Con-
i stitution of the United States,-which pro-
Il vdcs that " No person, held to service or
: labor in one state, under the laws thereof,
y escaping into another, SHALL in consequence
y Of any law or regulation therein, be dis
e charged from such service or labor, but shall
E be delivered up, on claim Of the party 10
= whom such service or labor may be due, =
e are themselves unconstitutional, not being
C expressly authorized by that instrument.
J. 1t is tue that the Constitution does not.
in express terms, provide for any le Is.aiion.
10 either by Congress or the several states, with
lr a view 10 the execution in good faith of the
i clause aforesaid and, on the other hand.
&c there is no prohibition Of legislation by Ell
in Their Your committee deem il unnecessary
in TO say more upon this point, than that this
question has heen subjected TO full and de.
g liberae adjudication, in the hiehes, tribunal
y in the country, in the case already cited, anil
H. unanimou.ly, with the exception Of one
&c Judge, determined in favor OF the compe-
" tency Of such legislation by Congress. The
oil particular legislation adopted in both acts
lit has hot, indeed yet received Judicial sane
rs ton. That Of 1913 has, however, received
IN such sanction and with the same nnanimiiv
he that legislation at all upon the subjec, is
We pronounced to be competent. The language
OF Judge STORY, who gave the opinion OF
to the Court is " We hold The ac, 10 bc clearly
nv constitutional in all its leading provisions
=. and, indeed, with the exception OF that part
he which confers authority upon safe magis-
he iratcs to he free from reasonable doubt and
Az difficulty"
ms We are aware of no material arguments
mt which are relied upon to prove he act oil
ct 1850 unconstitutional, which do not apply
la with equal force to the act of 1893. except
ed that which denies that judicial power can
is probably be conferred upon that class o.
he public officers called Commissioners, ar
n pointed by and removable a, the pleasure o
N the several Circuit Courts, in pu suan,e "
IT. certain acts of Congress. No such subordr
re, maize officers were provided for until scvera
wo years after the enactment OF the first iug
IT, tive slave law. and though portion Of th,
c. duties and powers now conferred upon then
nd were authorized a. an earlier period. the,
ill did not receive The name and style of Com
I'd missioners, until il was conferred by an ac
rd of Congress in 1917. That The powers con
I'd lerred upon them in respect to fuslrives from
~ labor are in their nature Judicial. isgeneraly
in. conceded, and freely admitted by your com
Id mittee; bu the position that it is not com
at petent for Congress TO confer such powers OF
in individual officers however appointed, ant
of by whatever name, is rather technical thar
nc, substantial and your committee must avov
ia that they have no confidence in the expec-
Oh iaion that the act alluded TO will ever Il,
he pronounced by the proper tribunal void OF
I'd that ground.
u we, lHcTeloTs, thlnk lhe ohiy saic AM
10 prudent course for this House to adopt is Il
lie assume the entire validity and constitution
he aiy of such legislation rs Congress ha
IN adopted on this subject, and the consequen
aid in,alidiiy of state legislation intended or cal
say cuatcd TO coun,ervail it.
.. Your committee would deem it out of place
The here TO discuss the merits Of either fugitive
ult slave act, as a matter of expedency. 1t i
IN not point about which discussion here Womb
ais be of AIRY avail. lis members have not takeI
My the trouble 10 inquire whether there are O.
The are not shades of difference among them
!, a selves respecting it. This House needs no
The 10 be informed tina; law may be harsh in
ng expedient, and unpaacable to large portion
ap- of tine community on whom it operates, am
ing still be valid and binding.
' 'On On these grounds, your committee rec
'o ommend the adoption of the amendment
ca, which shall include in he repeal the Sd sec
We lion of the act referred TO, and are OF opin
III !, ion that being thus amended the bill oug'l
A.. 10 pass.
Respectfully submitted.
~, ~ CHARLES DAVIS,
'he in behalf Of the Committee.
all ~ II ..o r. D.. ~, % 1o5Ii