Jeffersonian Republican. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1840-1853, 1852-01-22
VETO s1ESs AGE.-

or Johnston, on returning with his objections
the bill passed by the last Legislature, repeal
ing section of the Kidnapping Law--it is
as follows:
To Tie Senate Of Pennsylvania -.
Senators:-An act entitled An Act to re-
peal the Sixth Section of an act entitled an
act to prevent kidnapping, and preserve the
public peace, prohibit the exercise of certain
power heretofore exercised by Judges. Justi-
ces Of the Peace, and Jailers of this Common
wealth, to repeal certain Slave Laws" has
been held under advisement since the ad-
! journment of the last Legislature.
| In the obedience to the provisions of the
Constitution, return this bill to the Senate,
where it originated, without my approval, and
with my reasons for Withholding it. To those
I reasons, founded on the clearest sense Of du-
ty and official responsibility, invite your can
did attention. They are now for the first time
given, because now, for the first time since
the passage of this act, has an opportunity
offered to confer with those to whom my rea-
sons may be important, and with whom they
may be operative. The section proposed to
be repealed is in these words, sit shall not
be lawful to use any Jail or prison of this
Commonwealth for the detention of any per-
son claimed as fugitive from .servitude or
labor, except IN cases where jurisdiction may
lawfully he taken by any judge, under the
provisions of this act; and any jailor or keep
!, er Of any prison, or other person who shall
offend against the Provisions of this section,
shall on conviction thereof, pay fine of five
hundred dollars one-half thereof for the use
of this Commonwealth and the other half to
the person who prosecutes; and shall moreo-
yer, thenceforth, be removed from office, and
be incapable Of holding such Office of iailor or
keeper of a prison at any time during his nat
ural life" 1t is a part of law passed in
the year 1s47, under the Executive Admins
tration of my predecessor, and by votes unan-
imous, or nearly so, of both branches of the
! Legislature. The bill under consideration is
confined to the repeal of the section prohibit
ing the use Of our prisons as places of the de-
tention Of fugitives from labor If the legis-
lation proposed authorizes the use of the pris-
ons, it is in rcpugnance to the Constitution of
the United States as expounded by the Su-
preme Court. By q decision made in deroga-
ton Of tho local statutes of Pennsylvania, the
Supreme Court of the u States, held in so
many words that all State legislation on the
subject of the reclamation of fugitives from
, labor, whether to obstruct, or to aid it. to him
der or promote it, is absolutely and entirely
prohibited. The legislation of Congress su-
persedes all State legislation on the subject
and by necessary implication prohibits it.
The States cannot enact auxiliary provis-
ions on the subject This is the very Ian
guage. If, therefore, an act of Assembly
were passed, authorizing the several County
Commissioners to erect safe houses of deten-
ton for persons claimed as fugitives from Ia
bor under such regulations as the Legislature
or its agents might prescribe, for the recep-
tion and safe keeping of the inmates, such a
law would be unconstitutional, and conse-
quently void, and any single discontented cit
izen of county might have it so declared. l
am unable to see any difference in this res
pect between the special construction of such
places of detention regulated and controlled
by State agents, and the permission to use
those already erected and regulated by gen.
eral laws 1t is the State laws, interfer-
ing in the question of the alleged fugitive and
his claimant, and such laws the Supreme
Court of the United States haye pronounced
unconstitutional 1t is no; the legislation of
Pennsylvania that has closed our jails against
the reception OF such fugitives, but formal
decision of the Supreme Court, declaring our
former Statute on this subject demonstrations
al; a decision, which until reversed, is bind
ing on every department of this government.
Nor were the certain consequences Of this
doctrine, thus somenly adjudIcate1, unforeseen.
The Present Chief Justice ofthe United States,
an eminent urist, and citizen of the State
of Maryland, in dissenting from the opinion
of the Court, expressed his belief that these
very effects would be produced, and foretold
the time, when State agency being repudia-
ted, and State prisons closed by this very de-
cison, "the territory ofthe neighboring States
would become open pathways for fugitives
from labor" These are his words, and they
concIusively show inwhat light he understood
the Judgment thus pronounced am aware
it has been alledged that the point herein
mentioned, as decided,di not arise in the case.
1t is answered that the Judges of the Court,
in their several decisions, declared otherwises
The Chief Justice, who was present and