The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-06-23

ON THE rfEALIrY or the FUGITIVE SLAVE Law.
In the House Of Representatives, May %, 1852.

n. the House Of Representatives., May %, 1852.
The House being in the Committee OF the
Whole on the state Of the Union Mr.. SEY-
mouR, of Connecticut, in the chair on the in
valid pension bill
Mr.. BAYLY, Of Virginia. said
Mr.. CHAIRMAN: There have been two prop
ositons propounded in the debate during this
session, which desire to discuss. One is, that
the fugitive slave law, like any other law OF
Congress, is open 10 repeal and the other Is,
that the compromise measures being the law OF
the land, resolutions to reafiirm them are idle, If
not mischevous. | utterly deny both these
propositions In the first place, say that the
fugitive slave law was passed to-execute tun-
damental provision of the Constitution; and IS
an enactment which the Constitution requires.
| maintain that Congress is under precisely the
same obligation TO pass all laws which are ne
cessqry to execute the provisions of the Consti-
tuition as il is to abstain from the enactment OF
laws prohibited by it, and, that when one Con-
gress has discharged its duty in this respect,
and has passed n law necessary to execute
provision of the CONSTITUTION, it is precisely az
unconstitutional TO reped II, without aacompa'
panyng the repeal with n substitute equally ef-
fective, as it is to enact law which the Constr
tuition absolutely forbids. The duties enIoined
/
imperative as the acts forbidden. If be right
in these positions, am certainly right in deny
ing the proposition that you have right to re
peal the present law for the extradiion OF iugi-
tive slavaa. unless the very. law making the re
psdl@suSstitut8 other provisions equally EFF
| fectve.
The enemies of the fugitive slave law, or the
most intelligent of them, seem to acquesee IN
this and hence, to excuse themselves, they nave
taken the position that the provision OF the Con
sttntion referred to- imposes duty upon The
| States, but confers no power upon the general
government and that some of the details OF
the fugitive slave law are in conflict with the
Constitution. | know, sir, that might sum
GENTLY answer these points by saying that the
uniform practice of the government, and the de-
cisions of The courts Of last resort in most OF
the States, and of the Supreme Court of the
United States have decided otherwise. But
sir, it is not every man who reads the decisions
Of the courts; therefore desire to address my
self for short time to these propositions.
The provision Of the Constitution OF the
United States for the surrender Of fugitive slaves
! is in these words:
"No person held TO service or labor IN one
State, under the laws thereof, escaping into an.
other shall, in consequence OF any law or regu'
lation therein, be discharged from such party to
whom such service or labor may be due"
This provision grew out OF n distrust upon
the part Of the Southern people, OF the dispo
siion of those at the North to surrender up their
fugitive slaves and as the provision grew out
of that distrust, il is absurd to suppose that
the trainers of the Constitut on relied upon the
Northern States to pass the necessary laws to
execute it, 1t would have been an anomaly
particularly for such body as that whlch7ramed
A. II. III 49, Al.
same clause, to have expressed dsirust, and to
| have implied confidence. And yet, to this con
cluson all must come who maintain that this
clause only imposed duty upon the States, and
conferred no power of legislation upon the gen
eral government The plain and obvious mean
ing of the language of the clause requires thai
when legislation is necessary Congress should
act but if there was any doubt about that, the
circumstances under which the Constitution was
framed would remove it.
We are told here now, that this provision o.
the Constitution of the United States Is AZ
odious one to Northern men, and that the exc
cution of it is painful to them. doubt no
that such ia the fact. The prevalence of sucl
feeling in the North at the time that proviso
was engrafted on the Constitution, made 1t he
q cessary. Well, sir, if such was the case wou
not Northern men he1iselves have required i
putting that provision in the Constitution at tn
e instance of Southern men, that they should b
relieved to as large an extent as possible fror
% the enforcement of 1t? If they had understood
that this provision required that the Legislature
of the Northern States should enact the law
necessary to carry out the provision, would nc
they have said: We wish to be free from thi
o. dsagreeabe duty to as large an extent as poss
BILE; if this thing is to be done, let it be done b
NJ the Congress of the United States, where tn
"A South, equally with the North, will be repre-
o. scented, so that we may be relieved, as far q
70 practicable, from the necessity of carrying OF
r. the provision!
% Besides that, we all know, that in respect t
= this question of the delivery of fugitives fror
h Justice and service, there was just much ne
>. cessty of uniformity Of legislation as there wa
in the case of bankruptcy, naturalization, or
, any other case. Would not convenience, and
!, sense of propriety alone on the part of all cor
% cerned, have suggested that the legislation upo
. this subject should be uniform, which woul
4. have been impracticable if that legislation ha
Il been left to the several States? Take the cas-
of fupitives from Justice, the provision for tn
a surrender of whom is in the same clause of tn
Constitution as that for the rendition of fugtiy
slaves. Could anything be more inconvenier
:. than that separate code should be consute
IL upon every demand? Would not everybod
say that there is rs great a necessity for un
Is formity of legislation in case of that sort ;
there is in respect, for instance, to the authent
l. cation of records from the several States
Do we not all know that the great defect
e the articles of confederation which was sougl
Al to be remeded by the adoption of the Constit
IT ton was, that its DEGREES did not operate upc
e, the people directly, but that it was depende
n upon the several States to carry them on
e When this defect was felt in other cases, won
Is the trainers of the Constitution have permttt
T. it to remain in this case alone, which is the pr
else case IN which all must have felt II you
have been most embarrassing!
Bat, sir, my time will not allow me TO prese
o any more of these obvious, practical common
d sense views on this subject. These were u
e views of the President of the Convention tn
ID framed the Constitution. They were the view
of the Third Congress which sat under the Coz
ly sttution, composed, 20 large extent, of Il
r, members who framed it. They are the view