The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-04-16


In the debate of Wednesday, in the House
OF Representatives, Mr.. RANroUL, of Massa-
ohusetts, defined his position on the consttu-
tional provision for the reception of fugitives
from service:
"Mr. RAvroUt. The gentleman from Misss-
sippi (Mr NABERs) has inquired whether his col.
league (Mr. Bsows) and myself stand upon the
same ground in regard 10 the strict Observance Of
the Constitution, and especially that clause Of the
Constitution which provides for the delivery of fu-
gitive slaves? Now. ask the gentleman to allow
INC TO answer that question.
"Mr. RAsTouL handed TO the reporter the follow
ing memorandum Of the reply which he had wish
ed to make, when he was prevented by the enforce
ment of the rules:
"Before the gentleman from Mississippi mir.
Brown) tell whether he agrees with me on
these points, he must fret know my views upon
them insst upon the strict observance OF the
Constitution not in unmcanipg words, but in
fact. II there is any doctrine fundamental to the
creed Of the Democratic party, II Ia that THr Cos-
sr7vTios nE STRICTLY CONSTRUED. by tho tenth
amendment, powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, prohibited by IL to
the States, reserved 10 the States respectively
TO the people.
"The third clause Of the I'd section Of article 4th
Of the Constitution, just quoted by the gentleman,
does not in torms, grant one scintila Of power TO
the Federal Government. IL docs not by any i'm
plcstion, necessary, or even unnecessary, grant
any power. any more than the first clauso Of the
same section, touching iinmunitics Of citizens At
the time IL was adopted there is reason TO sus-
pect that any dreamed that II contained grant
Of power. IL was borrowed from the ordinance of
1857, la which instrument nobody has yet pre-.
Al L. Il
Fugitive law, pretended to be based on this clause,
is naked usurpation Of power, without one sylls.
bic in the Constitution TO justify IT, a gros,, pal.
psble, fragrant violation Of the Constitution which
VIC have sworn 20 support.
"sucb usurpation a Hamiltonisn FederaIist
may justify-s State Rights Democrat cannot.
This should have argued If the PREVIOUS osssTIos
bad not been employed last week 80 quiet agita-
ton. cutting Of oil debate"
In this view Of the Constitution Mr.. RAN
ToUL agrees with Mr.. RHErr. Assuming that
these gentlemen speak the sentiments Of the
factions they respectively represent, We sup
pose that the Southern Rights men and the
Abolitionists believe with them that the con-
stitutonal provision in question is 10 be rem.
dered efficacious by State and not by Federal
legislation.
II there were ever substantial reason for sup
posing this position tenable, we spprehend that
the time has gone by for raising the question
The Fugitive act Of 1893 was passed by men
who were the contemporaneous expositors of
the Constitution. They understood the OBJ
jecls Of the provision, and legslaied according
ly. No man in the House Of Representatives,
in 1893, objected to the Fugitive act Of that
year that 1t was gross, paipabie, fragrant
riolafion Of The Constitution" IL never &C
CURED 10 the men who were with and among
the trainers Of that instrument to condemn the
act designed to carry out its provisions in thi.
regard as violation Of Estate rights"
But we have not merely contemporaneous
legislative exposition Of the Constitution on
this point, and the silent acquiescence Of all the
courts and legislatures in the Union for more
than half acentury- have the solemn judg-
ment Of the Supreme Court. Mr.. R.NroUL
is an exceedingly adroit, daring, and in1uen-
tial politician. lie is man of many accom-.
plshments but we have never heard that
profound knowledge Of the law was among
them. At all events, we apprehend that
among his professional brethren in Massachu
sets he is not considered 50 good an authority
on a constitutional question as the Supreme
Court Of the United States Now. the Sn- |
preme Court have said that Congress have the |
ereiuape power of legislating for the purpose of