The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-06-23


law of '93, prescribing the mole Of proceeding
in the delivering up of fugiti'es from justice
and labor; and they did it almost unanimously
They thus decided that Legislation was necessa-
nv to give life to this provisional the Constltu-
ton, in reference to both classes Of fugitives,
and they also decided, that that'egisation comes
properly from Congress.
Well, sir, as have already sait, that Congress
was composed to very large extent OF mem
bers of the convention that framed the Consil-
tuition, and the president was George Washing
ton, who presided over that convention II
might seem, therefore, that without referring
to anything else, this might settle the question
as to the necessity of legisa ion to give vitality
to this principle Of the Constitution, and as to
the right and duty of Congress to enact the ne
cessary laws. But what has been the practice
of the country? think may safely say, that
there is not State in the Union whose govern
or at some time or other, without question from
any quarter, has not made surrender of fugi-
tiyes from justice under this law of 93; and
thus acquiesced in its consttutionality. And |
venture to say, that no such fugitive has ever
been released upon habeas corpus upon the
ground that the law was unconstitutional, and
the action OF the governor under It, was there
fore unauthorized.
The supreme court of Pennsylvania, when
presided over by the illustrious Chief Justice
riIghman, in the case of Wright Us. Deacon,
decided it to be constitutional. In delivering
the opinion of the court, he said
"Whatever may be our private opinions on
the subject Of slavery, il is well known that our
Southern brethren would not have consented to
become parties to constitution, under which
the United States have enjoyed so much pros
narifu unloaQ thaiy prnpertv in gloypa had bapu
secured. This constitution has been adopted
by the free consent of the citizens of Pelmayk
udnia; and it is the duty of every man, whatever
may be his Office or station, to give it fair and
candid construction"
The chief Justice cites the provision in the
second section OF the fourth article OF the Con-
stitution, and observes:
'fIere is the principle: the fugitive is to be
delivered up on claim of the master. But 1t re-
CURED law to regulate the manner in which
this principle should be reduced to practice. 1t
was necessary to establish some mode in which
the claim should be made, and the fugitive be
delivered up"
The Judge then quotes the enactment on the
subject by Congress, aud concludes the opinion
as follows:
at plainly appears from the whole scope and
tenor of the Constitution, and act Of Congress,
that the fugitive was to be delivered up on a
summary proceeding, without the delay OF a
formal trial III court of common law. But if
he had really right to freedom, that right was
not impaired by this proceeding He was placed
just in the situation in which he stood before
he fed and might prosecute his right IN the
State to which he belonged"
To this opinion, which was pronounced In
1919, ask the especial attention OF the coun
try, az in few words it covers the whole
ground.
In the case of Jack and Martin Chief Justice
Nelson, of New York, now Of the Supreme
Court of the United States, INDUCED in similar
reasons. He said
"Tne counsel for the plaintiff in error contends,
! the mode of making the claim and of delivering
up the fugitive, is subject exclusively of State
regulation, with which Congress has no right TO
atty of the law of this State is sought to be
sustained.
lit ia material to look into the object of this
clause of the Constitution, the evil to be guard
ed against, and the nature and character of the
rights to be protected and enforced, in order &c
| comprehend its meaning, and determine wha
powers, and to what extent, may be rightfully
| claimed under it.
cat the adoption of The Constitutions small
minority of the States had abolished slavery
within their limits, either by positive enactmen
or judicial adjudication; and the Southern State
are known to have been more deeply interested
in slave labor than those of the North, wher
slavery yet to some extent existed, but where
must have been seen it would probably 500
disappear. 1t was natural for that portion of tn
Union to fear that the latter States might, unde
the influence of this unhappy and exciting sub
iect, be tempted to adopt course of Legislation
that would embarrass the owners pursuing thei
fugitive slaves, if not discharge them from ser
vice. and invite escape by atfordiDg place 0
refuge. They already had some experience G
the perplexities in this respect, under the Cor
federation, which contained no provision on tn
subject; and the serious and almost insurmoun'
able difficulties that this species of property OF
casioned in the convention, were well calculate
to confirm their strongest apprehensions. t
this source must be attributed, no doubt, tn
provision of the Constitution, and which directl
meets the evil, by not only prohibiting the State
from enacting any regulation dischargng tn
slave from service, but by directing that he sha
be deliver ed up to the owner. ltimpes dout
whether they would, in the exercise of unrs
strained power, regard the right OF the owne
or properly protect them by local Legislation
Inc OBJECT OF tne pIOVloiou oSiiig MUS Pt''Pao'
it should receive n construction that will operai
most effectually to accomplish the end consistel
with the terms of it. This we may reasonabl
; infer will be in accordance with the intent of II
makers, and will regard, with becoming respec
the rights Of those especially interested in i
execution. Which power, then, was it ntende
should be charged with the duty of prescribr
the mode in which this injunction of the Co
stituton should be carried into effect, and e
forcing its exe> ution--the States or Congress
, 1t ia very clear, if left to the .,,ar mo c-o
purpose of the provision might be defeated
spite of the Constitution The States ria
omit any legislation on the subject, and theret
leave the owner without any known means /
winch 70 assert his rights or they might so i
eumter and embarrass the prosecution of ther
as that their legislation on the subject would |
tantamount to denial. That all this could n,
, be done, or omitted, without disregardinp ii
spirit of the Constitution is true, but the prov
sion itself is founded upon the assumption th,
without it the acknowledged rights of the owl
ers would not be observed or protected it WIS
p,odn in eynrpse farms N eruard atroirot n noe.