The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-06-03

that the law unconstitutional, and the action Of the
governor under II was therefore unauthorized.
me supreme court OF Pennsylvania, when presided
over by The illusrous Chief Justice Tghman, in The
case OF Wright Us Deacon decided il 10 be constitutional
In delivering the opinion OF the court. he said
Whatever may be private opinions the subject OF
slavery, Il Is well Known that southern brethren would
under which the United States have enjoyed much pros
perry unless their property IA slaves mad been secured
The citizens OF Psnnsyioana and Is the day Of every
man, whatever be his Office station give fair
and candid construction" fiBassi 8N
section Of the fourth article Of the constitutions and OBJ
serves ik& al~
Here is the principle: fugitive to be delivered up
ON claim OF the master Bat It required law TO regulate
The manner In which this principle should be reduced TO
practice. It necessary to establish mode in
which the claim should be made and the fugitive be de-
iivered up
The Judge then quotes the enactment on the subject by
Congress, and concludes the opinion as follows
(" It plainly appears om the whole scope and tenor Of
the constitution and OF Congress, that The fugitive
delay OF formal trial in a Of common law. But II
he had really right freedom, that light not mpair-
In which he stood before lie isd and might prosecute his
right in the State to which he belonged"
Tothis opinion. which was pronounced in 1919. ask
the especial attention OF the country as IN lew words
covers the whole ground.
IN the case Of Jack and Martini Chief Justice Nelson.
OF New York. now of the Supreme Court Of the United
The counsel plaintiff in contends mode
of making the claim and of delivering the fugitive. is
subject exclusively of State regulation, with which Con-
gress has no right TO interfere upon this the
Of the law of this State sought be sus.
tained.
constitution, the evil 70 be guarded against and the
and character Of the rights be projected and enforced
powers. and what extent may be rightully claimed
der =
by positive enactment judicial adjudication and the
interested in slave labor than those of the North.
slavery yet to some extent existed but where must have
raj for that portion Of the Union to lear that the latter States
might under the Influence OF this unhappy and exciting
saoleet be tempted 70 adopt course OF legislation thar
not discharge them from service, and nvi,e escape by a
q % q sugs MI hey sad M
ton, which contained provision the Subject and
species of properly occasioned in the convention well
calculated 10 confirm their strongest apprehenslons To
this Source must be a.,baed no doubt me provision
prohibiting the states from enacng regulation dschars
ing the slave from service but by directing that he shall be
delivered the IL i'm plies doubt whether they
would in the exercise of unresiraned regard the
rights OF the owner Or pfope protect them by localegs
should receve construction that will operate effect
uay accomplish the end consistent with the Of
This reasonably infer, will be in accordance with
the intent OF the makers and will regard with becoming
respect the rights Of those especially Interested in its
charged with the duty OF prescribing the mode in which this
injunction of the constitution should be carried into effect
and enforcing It's execuionhe States Congress Il
very clear II ei 10 the former, the great OF the
provision might be defeated in spite of the constitution
The States ight omit any legislation the subject and
thereby leave the owner without any known by
which TO assert his rgs Or they might 50 and
on The subject would be tantamount denial That all
this could not be done or omitted without dsreRadng the
spirit OF the constitution, Is but the provision itself
founded upon the assumption that without IL the acknow
edged rights OF the ownets would not be observed or pro-
larda
sble Of injustice by the State authorities The idea
that he trainers Of the constitution Intended 10 leave the
regulation OF this subject the States when the provision
isel obviously sprung Of their fears Of partial and
legislation by the States in respect TO H. cannot readily
admitted IL would present inconsistency oil action,
and unsknlness in The adoption Of means for the end
In view, TOO remarkable TO have been overlooked by
much less wise body OF They naturally have
and felt that the spirit apprehended exist in the
States, which made this provision expedient, would be
ner Of carrying into effect renedy Of evil
and the security OF rights would not be complete unless
this power also vested In the national government
The case taken the OF last resort, and the
decision OF Judge Nelson was affirmed But Chancellor
WalIworh took the ground which is insisted upon,
that the clause oil the constitution under discussion i'm
posed duty upon the States. but conferred power
upon the general government But he told longer
ago than last winter that he had yielded that opinion in
Difference 10 the decision Of the Supreme Court But,
although be held the law OF 93 unconstitutional in
his opinion he expressed sensible views
upon the subject OF slavery to which call the attention
OF gentlemen from New York
However much, therefore, may deplorc the exist
Of slavery In any part Of the Union as national
we'll local evil, yet, the right Of the reclaim
his fugitive slave Is secured him by the federal constu
tion good citizen, whose liberty and property Is pro-
tecied by that constitution, will Interfere 10 this
vision from being carried into full effect according it's
spirit and effect and even where forms of
OF evadug the constitutional
vision, TO delay the remedy OF the master 10 Obtaining
OF his fugitive slave. II Is undoubtedly the right and
may become the duty, OF the court In which any proceed
nu'ed the aside, ii they
and carried in good faith and upon
probable grounds for believing that the claim Of the master
TO the service OF the supposed slave Is invalid
In the case OF the Commonwealth Us. Griffin, Chief
Justice Parker, OF Massachusetts holds this language
"Ths brings the case a single point. whether the
without a warrant is constitutional lis difcu, in
like this for persons who not Inhabitants OF savebod
ing States prevent prejudice om having too strong an
effect their minds We must reflect, however, that the
constitution made with States 10 which II
would ibe mind inquire whether slaves
properly II wasa serious question when they came
the constitutional what should he done with their
slaves They might have kept aloof from tue constitution
Thai nsru men a compromise. Ii was compact by
which all are bound We consider, then, what
the intention OF the consultation, The words OF Il were
yen,ion whose feelings We're abboren slavery, but we
entered into agreement that slaves should be
sdeed p6perty Slavery woud still have continued, IL
no constitution had been made.
The constitution does not prescribe the mode cf re-
claiming slave, but leaves II 10 be determined by Com
gress II very clear that Il not intended that applcs
should be made - the executive authority OF the state
Is said that the which Congress has passed this
subject IL the amendment Of the constitution
securing the people in their and property against
seizures. &c without com pain upon oath. But all tho
obvious that parties to the constitution, and
the mendnent has relation TO the parties.
lit ia said that when seizure ~ made, II should be
made conformaby 10 our lave This does follow from
f,o nd tho al