The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-06-03
CONGRESSIONAL.
SPEECH OF Ma. BAYLY,

CUNGKENSlUNAL
SPEECH OF Ma. BAYLY,
OF VIRGINIA,
n. tls Finahty of the Fugive- Slape Law deuersd in
the House Of Representatives. May 2a, 1884,
The House being In COMMITTEES OF the Whole on the
.ae OF The Union (Mr. SEYaouR. of Connecticut. in
,he chair on the invalid pension bill
Mr. BAYLY said
Mr. CHAIRMAN, There have been Two propositions
propounded in The debate during this session which de-
vr 10 discuss One s that the fugitive slave law like
any other law OF Congress. is open repeal; and the
other is that the compromise measures being the law Of
lbe land resolutions to real6rm them dla if not mis-
cbeyous utterly deny both these propositions In
The first place, say thai the fugitive. slave law was pass
ed to execute fundamental provision Of the consu-
lion and is an enactment which the constitution requires
maintain that Congress is under precisely the same OBJ
legation pass all laws which necessary 10 execute
The provisions OF the constitution is TO abstain from
the enactment OF laws prohibited BY IT. and that when
one Congress has discharged its duty in this respect and
has passed law necessary to execute provision of the
constitution. is precisely as unconstitutional 70 repeal
it, without accompanying the repeal with substitute
equally effective, as il is 10 enact law which the cons
constitutions bv the decalogue imperative as the
acts forbidden II be right in these positions, am
tainy right in denying the proposition that you have
right to repeal the present law for the cxtradon Of fug
i've slaves unless the very law making the repeal subs
tues other provisions equally elective.
The enemies oi the fugitive slave law. or the most in
QenCc,
10 excuse themselves they have taken the position that
The provision Of the constitution referred to imposes
duty upon The Stes but confers power upon the gen.
ea governments and that some Of the details OF the fu
gitive. slave law are n conflict with the constitution.
know sir that might sufficiently answer these points
by saying that the uniform practice of the government
aud the decisions OF the courts of last resort in most OF
the States and OF the Supreme Court OF the United
States, have decided otherwise But sir, il is not every
man who reads the decisions of the courts therefore
desire address myself for short time 10 these propo
sitons
The provision of the constitution of the United States
for the surrender of fugitive slaves is in these words
"No person held 10 service labor in State under
the laws thereo escaping no another, shall, in
such service labor; but shall be delivered up claim
ofhe party to whom such service or labor may be due"
This provision grew out OF dstrust upon the part Of
the southern people OF the disposition of those at the
North to surrender up their fugitive slaves and the
provision grew out OF that disust, tits absurd 10 sup
pose that the trainers OF the constitution relied upon the
northern States to pass the necessary laws TO execute it.
Ii would have been an anomaly particularly for such
body as that which framed the Constitution OF the United
States. in the same clause 10 have expressed dstrust
and 10 have implied confidence. And yet 10 this concu
SION all those must come who maintain ha, this clause
only imposed duty upon tine States, and conferred
power OF legislation upon the general government. The
plain and obvious meaning OF the language OF the clause
required that when legislation was necessary, Congress
should act but ii there was any doubt about that, the
circumstances under which the constitution was framed
would remove il.
We are told here that this provision OF the con-
stuon oil the United Slaies s odous to northern
men, and that the execution OF is painful to them
doubt not that such is the fact The prevalence OF such
feeling in the North at the time that provision was il
yraed on the constitution made IL necessary. WE'LL
sr, If such the case, would not northern them.
selves have required IN putting that prov in the
constitution al the instance of southern men, that they
should be relieved large an extent possible from
the enforcement OF il II they had understood that this
provision required that the legislatures of the northern
States should enact The laws TO carry out the
provision would not they have said We wish TO be Tree
from this dsagreeable duty large extent poss
Bile II this thing is 10 be done. let it be done by the Con-
gess oil the United States, where the South. equally
with the Norih will be represented, so that we may be
relieved far practicable. from the necessity oil
ryng out the provision!
Besides that, all know that, respect TO this ques
to1 OF the delivery OF fugves from justice and service,
there just much necessity OF uniformity OF
legislation as there was in case OF bankruptcy naiu-
rlzaon or IN any other Would not convenience
and sense OF propreiy alone. on the part OF all con-
csIned, have suggested that The legislation, upon
this subject should be uniform, which would have
been impracticabe il that legislation had been left
10 the several Siatesl Take the Of tngtves
from justice the provision for the surrender OF whom
ls IN the same clause oil the constitution that Tor
The rendition of fugitive slaves Could anything be
more lDconvenent than that separate code should be
consulted upon every demand II Would not everybody
say that there is great necessity for uniformity OF
legislation in case Of that sort as there is in respect for
instance TO the authorization OF records from The several
States
DO we not all know that The great delect IN TOE arces
Of confederation which sought TO be remeded by The
adoption Of The constitution was, that lis DEGREES did not
operate upen the people directly but that depend
eni upon the several States 10 carry them QUIZ When
this defect felt in other cases, would the trainers OF
The constitution have permitted II TO remain in this
alone which is the precise in which all must have
lei, u would have been most embarrassing
But SIR, my time will not allow me 10 present any more
oi these OBVIOUS practical, common views this
subject these were the views OF the president of the
convention that framed the constitution They were the
views OF the Third Congress which under the consii
tuition, composed. 10 large extent Of the members who
framed H. They are the views that have been entertained
BY every court before whom the question has ever come
whose authority is entitled TO any respect.
We all know The origin OF the law OF 03 In 1891
The governor OF Pennsylvania made demand upon the
governor OF Virginia for the surrender of fugitive from
Justice When this demand made, the governor OF
Virginia questioned bis authority the absence OF law to
make any such surrender. The constitution did moi de-
.gnaie him as the officer to make the suender nor did
he ihnk u devoved upon him State officer IL this
ease the constitution freer from difficulty Than in the
case OF fugitive slaves, for provides that the surrender
so be made upon the demand OF the executive of one
State il does not say that il ia to be made upon the ex
eculye of the other State but still lbe inference might
have been drawn that the authority making the demand
should be responded 10 by the corresponding authority
ihe State upon which the demand was made. Beverly
Randoph-the governor OF Virginia at that iime-ap.
Piled TO bis attorney general Mr. innis whose charsc
YER ~ well known 10 this nation, and he gave the
opinion that in The absence OF any law prescribing what
ozeer il was whose duty il should be 10 make the sur
tender, the provision in the constitution was a dead
letter
The governor OF Virginia made this response TO the
toyernor OF Pennsy lvana- He submitted The question
TO General Washington, and General Washington sent
message 10 Congress upon the subject Congress took
w that message and concurng in the opinion OF the at
toney general OF Virginia, they passed the law OF 93