The daily union., 1852-09-29
CONGRESSIONAL.
DEFERRED DEBATE.
THURSDAY. AUGUST 20, 1852,
I'm CONTINUATION
SENATE.


eat consideration and will not be mentioned by me ex-
esnt with respect Among the memories OF my youth are
happy days in which sal al the feet OF this tribunal,
x~blIs Marshall presided with Story by bis side The
essre now proceeds from the case OF Pfgg u.s. Penn
svyana o Peters, 539) wherein the power OF Congress
over his matter is asserted Without gong into any
inne cr,cism OF this judgment, or considering the ex-
,sn, n which il judicial, and therefore OF no
binding force all which has been already done at the bar
in one State aud by able court ~ another bui con-
csdng to il a certain degree ot weight as rule 10 'he
Jcarv on this particular point still il does not touch
,he grave question arising from the denia OF trial by
;nrv This Judgment was pronounced BY Mr.. Justice
,n,v From the Interesting biography o this great lu-
@ Ssn,Iv uubshed By his son, derive the distinct
statement that the necessity OF trial by jury was not be-
fore ihe court so that, in The estimation o Inc Judge
himself was still an open question. mere are 'Re
words:
"one prevailing opinion which has created great preu-
ca aaains, this Judgment is that il denies the right OF
person claimed as ngiye rom service or la1or POI, 70
10 involve general question as 10 the constnonaiy
Of the act 1893 But fact such question was IN the
case: and The argnmen thar The act OF l795 was uncons
tutona did not provide for Irla ny jury ae
cordng the quons of the SIKH article IN the amend
mens 10 the constitution having been suggested to my
father his from Washington, he replied that TINS
question argued by counsel nor considered by the
court and that he should sill consider il an open one.
But whatever may be the influence OF this judgment as
rule to the Judiciary cannot arrest our duty as egis-
la,ors And here adopt with entire assent the language
Of President Jackson IN his memorable veto, IN 1882 OF
the Bank OF the United States To his course was op-
his reply:
"If the opinion tie Supreme Court the whole
ground Of this act onght control The coordinate
snhoriies Of hi, government The Congress, the Exec
u,ve and the court mus, each for itself guided by
own opinion OF the constitution. Each public officer who
aks. an oah 70 snpps ne na non swfa' : nat ne
stood by others Il Is much the duty OF the House OF
eide upon the CONSTITUTIONAL oil any bill resolution
which may be presented them ior passage approval
as il The suprem Judges when il may he brought bs
tba fri iudip al tna
pfeme Court must nor therefore, be permed 10 control the
Congress the Executive when acting in their legislative
capacities but to have only such nusnce the force OF
their reasoning may deserve"
With these authoritative words of Andrew Jackson |
dismiss this lopic The early legislation of Congress,
and the decisions OF the Supreme Court cannot stand in
our way. advance TO the argument
..s.s, Nov" ''' Of the power Of Congress over this
The constitution contains powers granted to Congress,
compacs between the Staes and prohibitions addressed
the nation and TO The States compact prohibi
ton may be accompanied by power but not necessa-
ry, tor it is essentially distinct in its nature. And here
the single question arises whether The constitution, by
grant general spec AL confers upon Congress any
power to legislate on the subject Of fugtves from
labor.
The whole legislative power OF Congress, is derived
from two esrst from the general grant OF power,
attached TO the long catalogue Of powers TO make all
laws which shall be and proper for the
ing into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this constitution in the government OF
the United States or any department or officer there
Off and secondly from special grants in other parts OF
the constitution. As the provision in question does no,
appear in the catalogue OF powers, and does not puport
TO vest any power in the government oil the United States
in any department officer thereof, power to egs
late this subject be derived from the general grant
Nor can any such power be derived from any special
grant in any other part Of the constitutions for
exists The conclusion must be that no power is dele
labor
In all contemporary discussions and comments, the
constitution was constantly justified and recommended,
the ground that the powers not given 10 The govern.
withheld from il. II under ts original pro-
visions any doubt could have existed this head II
removed, far language could remove it, by the tenth
amendment, which, have already seen, expressly
declares that tbe powers not delegated the United
States by The constitution nor prohibited by il TO the
States, reserved 10 the States respectively, 10 the
people" Here, The simple text OF the constitution,
might leave this question. But its importance ustes a
more extended examination in two fold ghi--hrst, in
the history OF the convention, revealing the unmisaka
BILE intention OF its members and, secondly IN the true
principles OF our political system, by which the powers
oil the naIun and oi the Ssles respectively guarded
Look first al The history Of the convention The Arl.
ces oi TIE OH Confederation adopted BY the Continental
CDngress 18Th OF November, It'll, though containing
no reference 10 ugiyes from labor, had provisions sub
sanally like those in present constitution, touch.
ing the privileges OF citizens in the several States the
surrender OF ingyes from justice, and the credit due 10
the public records Of States But since the confederation
bad no powers not expressly delegated" and as no
power delegated to eglslae these matters, they
ware nothing than articles OF treaty or compact
Afterwards, al the national convention these three pro-
visions found place 10 the hrst-fpored draught oil
constitution, and they arranged IN the very order
which they occupied in the Articles o Confederation.
The clause relating TO public records stood last Mark
this fact.
When this clause, being in .orm merely a compact,
came sp Tor consideration in the convention vanous ef
forts were made 10 graf, upon il rJotr This was on
the very day Of the Adoption Of the Clause relating to fu
Olives ifoh labor. Charles Pockney moved 10 commit
i with proposition for Pocer TO establish uniform
laws the subject OF bankruptcy and foreign bills OF
exchange Mr.. Madison was IN favor OF a potcer foi
The execution of Judgments in other States Gouyer
neur Morris aso on tae same day. moved to commit q
further proposition for pe,pr "io determine The proo
and eject 0f such acts records and proceedings" Amd
is clear that nobody supposed that any such already
existed This narrative places the views OF the couyen
jion beyond question,
The c0mpatt regarding public records, together with
these various propositions, referred 10 committee
on which were Mr.. Randolph and Mr. Wi son, with
John Rulledge, Of South Carolina chairman Afte
several days. they reported the compact with poptr il
Songress 20 prescribe by general laws the manner il
which such records shall be proved. discussion en-
sped, in which Mr. Randolph complained that the def
m'on Of the powers OF The government so loose
npye opportunities OF usuping all the State powers
ns was ior not going further than the report, which
apes The legislature 10 provide for The effect Of udgmenis
clause Of compact, with the power attached was ther
soop'eo and s now part Of the constitution. In pres
ence OF his sol cude for the preservation OF State pow
sls, even while considering oposItion Tor an expres:
PoWer and also OF the distinct statement oil Mr. Ran
ooph tha. he I" was not for going further than the re-
pos y s evident that The idea could not then have oc
s9uea hal power was coupled with the nakei clause
OF .ompae, on iugnives from labor
Al later day vatous clauses and articles severa,
in arraIf