Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1852-01-14

holding it. To those reasons, founded on
the clearest sense of duty and of official
responsibility, l invite your candid atten.
tion. They are now for the first time
given, because now, for the first time since
the passage Of this act, has an opportunity
offered to confer with those to whom my
reasons may be important, and with whom
they may be operative. The section pro-
posed to be repealed is in these words,
1T shall not be lawful to use any jail
or prison of this Commonwealth for the
detention of any person claimed as fugi-
tive from seryitude or labor, except in
cases where jurisdiction may lawfully be
taken by any judge, under the provisions
Of this act; and any jailor or keeper of
any prison, or other person who shall offend
against the provisions of this section, shall,
on conviction thereof, pay fine of five
hundred dollars onc-half thereof for the
use of this Commonwealth and the other
half to the person who prosecutes; and
shall moreover, thenceforth, be removed
from Office, and be incapable of holding such
Office of jailor or keeper of prison at any
time during bis natural life" 1t is part
of law passed in the year 1s47, under
the Executive Administration of my pred
ecessor, and by votes unanimous Or nearly
so, Of both branches of the Legislature
The bill under consideration is confined to
the repeal of the section prohibiting the
use Of our prisons as places of detention
for fugitives from labor. If the legislation
proposed authorizes the use of the prisons,
it is in repugnance to the Constitution of
the United States as expounded by the
Supreme Court. BY decision made in
derogation of the local statutes of Penn
sylvania, the Supreme Court of the United
States, held in SO many words that all
State legislation on the subject of the
reclamation offugitives from labor, whether
to obstruct, or to aid it, to hinder or pro-
mote it, is absolutely and entirely prohib-
tied. The legislation of Congress super
sedes all State legislation On the fubject,
and by necessary implication prohibits it.
The States can not enact auxiliary
provisions on the subject. This is the
very language. If, therefore. an act of
Assembly were passed, authorizing the
several County Commissioners to erect safe
houses Of detention for persons claimed as
fugitives from labor, under such regulations
as the Legislature or its agents might
prescribe, for the reception and safe keep
ing Of the inmates, such law would be
unconstitutional, consequently void, and
any single discontented citizen of a county
might have it SO declared. l am unable
to see any difference in this respect, be-
tween the special construction of such
places of detention regulated and controlled
BY State authority, and State agents, and
the permission to use those already erected
and regulated by general laws 1t is the
State law interfering in the question of the
alleged fugitive and his claimants, and such
laws the Supreme Court OF the United
States have pronounced unconstitutional
1t is not the legislation Of Pennsylvania
that has closed our jails against the recep-
ton Of such fugitives but formal decision
Of the Supreme Court, declaring our former
statute on this subject unconstitutional
decision, which until reversed, is binding
on every department Of this government.
Norwer the certain consequences Of this
doctrine, thus solemnly adjudicated, unfor- !
seen. The Present Chief Justice of the
United States, an eminent jurist, and
citizen of the State of Maryland, in dis
senting from the opinion of the Court,
expressed his belief that these very effects
would be produced, and foretold the time,
when State agency being repudiated, and
State prisons closed by this very decision,
I" the territory of the neighboring States
would become open pathways for fugitlves
from labor" These are bis words, and
they conclusively show in what light he
understood the judgment thus pronounced.
am aware it has been ALLEGED that the the
not arise in the case. 1t is answered, that
the Judges of the Court, in their several
decisions. declared otherwise.
The Chief Justice, who was present and
took part in the hearing, and whose dis
sen.ing opinion furnishes his views of
what was decided, says: "But as l un-
derstand the opinion of the Court, it goes
further, and decides that the power to pro-
vide remedy for this right is exclusively
vested in Congress, and that all laws up
on the subject by State, since the adop-
tion of the Constitution, are null and void"
Justice Wayne says, ain that opinion
it is decided: 8, That the legislation by
Congress upon the provision, as the su-
preme law of tho land, excludes all State
legislation upon the same subject; and
that no State can pass any law or regula-
ton, Or interpose such as may have been
aw or regulation when the Constitution .
If the United States was ratified, to su-
,eradd, to the delivery of fugitive Slaves"
hen adds, after learned argument sus- .
aiming this view, ~ consider the point
have been maintaining more important
han any other in the opinion of the 4
COURT" alleging, as confirmation, that ,
his was point decided, that only three S
# the nine Judges composing the Court, c
lissented.
Justice Mclean makes the inquiry,