The daily union., 1852-04-14


FORE by State legislation that these persons were clothed
with the judicial and ministerial authority sutheien. 10
perform The functions Tequired The act of Congress
merely enumerated them as class. They were mags.
aes before the act OF Congress, and derived no mags
erial power as such from that act II was, therefore,
by these creatures OF State laws that the provisions
oil the OF Congress carried into effect. in
junction with the district and circuit Judges OF the United
States courts, exercising concurrent and harmonious
jurisdiction from 1898 I'LL S47 IN the State OF Pennsyl-
vana aud yet told by the gentleman from Della
ware, [Mr Broomal,l and his coadutor from Chester,
Mr. James,l that the States have no power to leglslse
in oDirmanee OF the right OF the master to his
slave Strange doctrine truly And il Is conended that
the Prgg sanctions that view OF the subject before
u.s. think | have shown with how much reason Six
OF the nine Judges, therefore. who decided the Prgg
case, decidedly OF the opinion that legislation oil
some kind either comforting Judicial ministerial or police
words, they clearly OF opinion that the States cannot
prohibit their officers from gliding the master in the
recovery OF his slave.
Mr.. Brona here interposed. and wished 10 know who
| Mr.. Bonham then enumerated them
prohibit the officers Of this Commonwealth from aiding
carrying into effect the act OF Congress of 1893 Since
the passage of the ugitive-save b The sixth section
now stands which seriously interrupts or embarrasses
the people OF the South from recovering their slaves
within our territory We are denying them the use OF
our ails when give them for every other purpose for
which las are required.
Why should mol our jails be opened TO receive these
iuglliyes' We extend that same courtesy by the act
OF 1850 TO the general government in receiving prison.
ers committed under its aulhorlty and by the act of
1914 that courtesy is extended TO the cases Of hostages
and prisoners of war committed under like authority.
Are these acts unconstitutional! 1t would be meas.
ure OF humanity The fugitive must now be confined in
garret or cellar, locked up by the marshall concealed
from public vew liable to be rescued II his place oil
concealmen is known, and has hut hurried hearing
before his is disposed OF and he emanded back TO
slavery. Better Tar to put him in a place where he
could be by his friends have the benefits Of legal
counsel, and thus have a fair and impartial hearing
We would thus avoid the mobs, and riots. and blood
selfish position assumed by this State in refusing the
oil our als Besides, by the simple repeal OF the sixth
section we leave discretionary with the alers OF The
system would then lack uniformity. In some counties
they would be receved-in others not.
The only apparent difficulty perceive is that the first
section OF the act OF 1889 eces the fact that provision
has been made by Congress TO pay the expenses Of the
person committed by the authority of the United States
and il might appear that we would thus be throwing ex
penses the general government which TO be borne
by the OF the slave under the act OF Congress OF
September Is, 1850. But such is not the case, we
nd in the sth section of that act, tha, the fees of the
mashals and their deputies and OF the clerks Of the
courts or the commissioners in the arrest custody, and
delivery OF the fugitive, to be paid by the claimant or
his agent attorneys anj by the 9th section, the only
pense to which the general government is subjected is
when affidavit is made OF apprehended focibe res
when the marshal and his assistants entitled the
same compensation out OF the national treasury Tor the
removal OF the fugitive TO the State from which he fled
as is now allowed by law for the transportation OF
criminals.
|
clause of the constitution relative to fugves from labor
requires active exerions the part of the States TO fulfil
BE- dsHsreS bo n The s
labor By whom ''u Why. maniie.y BY the s authorities
Of the Stale to which the fugitive has fled They the
appropriately apply. Deliver up con claim" They
not the persons who make the claim. That is made by
The party to whom the service or labor is due" But
claim. Well, sir, after the decision Of the Supreme
Court in the case Of Prgg, the States OF Massachusetts
Our aea OF sa1 IS % ea Transcript Of the
statute. The operation OF this act in Pennsylvania was
TO render almost out OF the question 10 recover fugi.
tive slave in all the interior OF the State. The act gave
color to ocble resistance the part of the slave, and
bloody riots look place, and orcbe rescues, whenever
the act Of Congress OF 1898 attempted to be en-
forced Congress at last spoke passing the act oil 1850
They did say Pennsylvania Yoar act of 1S47 is
unconstitutional No; bat they acted with great con-
sderaton and caution, and they said in effect that mas
much you have passed law forbidding your State
magistrates from acting under the act OF 1793 we will
provide tribunals OF oar own. All, therefore, that is
asked the simple Of the lals OF the State for
the safe detention ol the iugves until they can have
hearing
Under this state OF facts. sir, il is marvellous to
that the bill stands should meet the united oppos
ton OF whg friends in this house. the various pre-
imnary votes have shown. Perhaps is not so strange
after all, considering The position assumed by the late
ecutive OF this Commonwealth, tGov Johnson.l Per-
haps they think perfectly right follow in the wake
OF their late leader and sandardbearer The late gov
ernor has expressed himself most unequvocally this
suuJeCt, OHCdl capacity Uu SEE
ton, proposed to be repealed by this bill, was
passed the last session OF the legislature, and
tained by him in his "breeches pocket during the
be himself has aconcally said different occasions,
and then finally vetoed al the commencement OF the
present session In that message find the same argu-
menis made OF in debate in opposition TO the
present bill. He says:
Thc bill under consdcra Is confined the repeal
Of the section prohibiting the of prisons places OF
detention for fugives from labor III the legislation pro-
posed authorizes the OF the PRISONS in
TO the constitution of the United Satcs expounded by
the Supreme Court BY decision made In derogston OF
the local statutes Of Pennsylvania the Supreme Court OF
the United States held In words that all State
legislation the subject of the reclamation of iugitives
from labor whether obsfruct aid il hinder pro-
mote IT, is absolutely and entirely prohibited The gss
tion OF Congress upesede all State legislation the sub
ect, and by implication prohibits H. The states
canno, enact auxiliary provisions on the subject This Is
the very language"
Again he says:
1T is the legislation of Pennsylvania that has closed
our jas against be reception OF such ugves but formal
decision OF the Supreme Court declaring iofme
this subject onaia decision which, until
reversed, is binding evoy department of this govern
/ ment."
Now, with how much reason the late governor made
these statements in his veto message may be inferred from
what have already said in reference to the decision
which be refers am happy TO say that large majority of
the people OF this Sate evnced by the late eecton
not entertain such opinions and very the
preponderance Of The legal talent OF the country both
North and Sonth. utterly repudates and disowns them.
The gentleman from Chester Mr. James] made OF
an argument against the of jails which
novel as it was unsound II understood him properly,
he said intended convey the idea that the relation
that which subssted between creditor and debtor
that The labor of ia duev mad