The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-09-02

As II IS for the public veal that there should
be- an end of suits, so by the consent OF civil
zed nations, these must be instituted within
fixed limitations Of time but this Act, exaltne
Slavery above even this practical principle o
| universal justice, ordalnS proceedings againS
Freedom without any reference to lapse OF
time
CHANGING only at these points, and not stop
ping for argument, vindcatlon, or illustration
come at once upon the two chief radical OBJ
ections 10 this Act, identical in principle with
those brought by our Fathers against the Brit
ish Stamp Act; first, that it is a usurpatlon by
| Congress of powers not granted by the Constl-
tuition, and an infractOn of rights secured TO the
States; and, secondly, that it takes away Trial
! by jury in question of Personal Liberty and
a suit at common law Either of these ObJec-
TONS If sustained, strikes at the very root OF the
! Act That it is obnoxious to both seems be-
yond doubt.
! But here, at this stage, encounter the diff
Guilty, that these objections have been already
forecosed by the Legislation of Congress and by
the decisions of the Supreme Court; that as
| early as 1893 Congress assumed power over
this subject by an Act which failed to Sc
cure Trial by Jury, and that the validity of
| irmed by the Supreme Court. On eXamina-
ton this difficulty will disappear.
The Act of 1893 proceeded from a Congress
that had already recognised the United States
Bank, chartered by previous Congress. which,
though sanctioned by the Supreme Court. has
been since in high quarters pronounced uncon-
situtional If it erred as TO the Bank, ii may
have erred also as to fugtives from labor. But
e..
very subject, so declared by the Supreme Court.
in pretending to vest a portion of the Judicial
power of the Nation in State officers. This
error takes from the Act all authority as an in
depreciation Of the Constitution. dismiss it.
The decisions of the Supreme Court are en-
titled 10 great consideration, and will not be
mentioned by me except with respect. Among
the memories Of my youth are happy days IN
which | sal at feet OF this tribunal while
MARSHALL presided, with STORY by his side
The pressure now proceeds from the case OF
Prigg VS.. Pennsylvania, Go Peters, 539,)
wherein the power Of Congress over this mat
ter is asserted. Without going into any minute
criticism of this Judgment, or considering the
extent to which IT Is extra-JudicIaI, and there
fore Of no binding force. all which has been al
ready done al the bar in one State, and by an
able court in another; but concedIng 10 II a
certain degree Of weight as a rule 10 the udl-
ciary on this particular point, still II does not
touch the grave question arising from the de-
NAL OF Trial by Jury. This judgment was pro-
nounced by Mr.. Justice Story. From the in
terestng biography Of this great juriSt. recently
published by his son. we derive the distinct
statement that the necessity Of Trial by jury
was not before the Court so that, in the esti-
nation of the Judge himself, it was still an
open question. Here are the words
One prevailing opinion, which has created great
prejudice against this judgment is that it denies the
right of a person claimed fugitive from service
or labor to trial by jury. This mistake arises from
supposng the case to involve the general question as
to tho consttutonality Of the Act of 1893. But in
fact such question in the and the argu.
ment that the Act Of 1893 unconstitutional, be-
it did not provide for trial by jury according
to the acquisitions OF the sxtb article in the amend
ments TO the Constitution, ha NRg been suggested to
my father on his return from ~VS9lhingOn, he replied
that this question was not argued by counsel nor
sdered by the Court and that he should still consider
ii an open one
But whatever may be the influence of this
Judgment as rule TO the judiciary it cannot
arrest our duty as legislators And here adopt
with entire assent the language of President
Jackson, in his memorable Veto, in 1892, Of
the Bank of the United States. To his course
was opposed the authority of the Supreme
Court, and this is his reply:
:" If the opinion of the Supreme Court covers the
whole ground of this Act it ought not to control the
coordinate authorities of this Government The
Congress tho Executive, and the Court must each
for itself BIO guided by it's opinion of the Cons
tuition E1Ch pRbItc officer, whO takes 00th 10 sup
J0,1 the CoRNtHtjoR swearS tint he WiW support IL as
ne HHderddHdS H. aad not ~ as U1ldeTSoOd by 9TH
Al
sentatycs of the Senate, and OF the President to de-
eide upon the constituonality of any bill resolu
ton which may be presented to them for passage
approval a. IT is of the Supreme Judges when it may
be brought before them for judicial decision. The
authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore,
be permitted to control the Congress the Execu-
tive, when acting in their legislative capacities, but
to have only such influence the force of their
sonng may deserve
With these authoritative words of Andrew
Jackson dismiss this topic. The early legls
aon OF Congress and the decisions Of the Su
preme Court cannot stand in our way. | adj
vance to the argument.
o. Noc, first, Of the po,cer Of Congress orer
THIS subject
The Constitution contains pO,cers granted to
Congress, cOmpacts between the States, and
prohibitions addressed to the Nation and to the
States. compact or prohibition may be ac-
companled by power; but not necessarily. for
ii is essentially distinct in its nature. And
here the single question arises, whether the
Constitution, by grant, general or special, con
ters upon Congress any power to leglslate on
the subject OF iugltives from labor.
'fhe whole legislative power OF Congress is
derived from two sources; first from the gen
eral grant of power, attached to the long cata-
logue of powers, " to make all laws which
shall be- necessary and proper for the carrying
into execution the foregoing powers and all
other powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government, Of the United States, or in any
department or officer thereof" and secondly
from special grants in other parts OF the Consti-
tuition. As the provision in question does not
appear in the catalogue of powers and does not
purpori to vest any power IN the Government
of the United States, or in any department or
officer thereof, no power TO egslate on this sub
lect can be- derived from the general grant. MOI
can any such power be derived from any
special grant in any other part of the Consttu-
ton; for none such exists. The conclusion
must be, that no power is delegated to Congress
over the surrender of lugitives from labor.
In all contemporary discussions and com.
menS, the Constitution was constantly justified
and recommended on the ground that the pow
ers not given 10 the Government Were with
held from it. II under its original provisions
any doubt could have existed on this head !
was removed, 80 far as language could remove
it, by the Tenth Amendment, which, as W.
have already seen. expressly declares that
the powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it TO thu
States, are reserved TO the States respectively
or TO the people" Here on the simple tex
of the Constitution might leave this ques-
tion. But ITS importance Justllies more eX
tended examination in twO-told light first
IN the history of the Convention, revealing TIN
unmistakeable intention OF its members an,
secondly, IN the true principles of our Politica
| System, by which the pnwerS of the NaiiOI