The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-10-13
NO. 354.

tain things. Is this the form Of giving advice
or recommendation IL is the language of an
thority, TO those who are bound to obey. If a
State do the thing forbidden, its act will be de-
clared void II il refuse TO DO that which IL
enjoined, the Federal Government, beng goU-
eminent, has the means of executing il.
The Constitution provides "thst full faith
shall be given to public acts, records, and in
dicial proceedings' of one State, in every other
IL an individual claim this provision as a right
and State court shall deny il, on a writ
Of error 10 the Supreme Court Of the Union
such judgment would be reversed And 70 the
provision that "the citizens Of each State shall
be entitled TO all privileges and immunities Of
citizens in the several States" Congress an
questionably may provide in what manner a
right claimed under this clause and denied by
State, may be enforced. And if a case can
be raised under it without any further statu.
tory provisions, 80 as TO present the point to the
Supreme Court, the decision Of State court,
denying the right, would be reversed So a
State is prohibited from passing law that
shall impair the obligations of contract
Soch law the Supreme Court has declared
void In these cases, and in many others where
State is prohibited from doing thing the
remedy is gwen by writ of error, under the
legislation of Congress. The same principle
applies in regard to fugitives from labor
A fugitive from justice may be delivered up
under q similar provision in the Constitution
lt declares that "a person charged in any
State with treason, felony, or other crime, who
shall flee from justice, and be found in another
State, shall, on demand of the executive au
thOrity Of the State from which he fed be de-
livercd up, to be removed to the State having
jurisdiction of the crime" This is contained
in the same section as the clause 10 relation
to fugitives from labor, and they both stand
upon the same principle. In both cases Con-
gress has provided mode in which effect shall
be given to the provision. No one, it is be-
lieved, has doubted the coustitutionality of the
provision in regard to fugitiyes from justice.
The men who framed the Constitution were
adequate to the great duties which devolyed
upon them. They knew that General Gov
eminent was essential to preserve the fruits of
the Revolution. They understood the necesSi-
ties OF the country. The Articles of Confede-
ration had been found as arope Of sand. in all
matters Of conflict between the different States
and the people of the different States With.
out General Government commerce could
not be regulated among the States, or with
foreign nations fugitives from labor could not
be reclaimed State boundaries could not be
authoritatively established
am aware it has been stated that the sub
Ject OF Slavery was not discussed in the Con-
vention, and that the reclamation of fugitiyes
from labor was not, at that time, subject of
much interest. This is mistake 1t was
subject OF deep and exciting interest, and with
out provision on the subject, no Constitution
could have been adopted. | speak from in
formation received from the late Chief Justice
Marshall who WAS one of the chief actors in
that day, than whom no man then living was
of higher authority.
The want of general regulation on the
subject OF iugitives from justice and from labor
was ielt, and tho above provisions in the Con-
stltution were intended as remedy. 1t has
proved to be On adequate remedy, as against
fugitives from justice. In no instance it is be-
lieved, has the constitutionality of this proy-
SION been doubted But the provision in rela-
ton to fugitives from labor, resting upon the
same principle, is now opposed.
III the introduction Of this provision into the
fundamental law of the Union was not in
tended to operate as the law of the Union-if
1T was recommendatory in its character only
1T was useless. The power to surrender fugi-
tives from labor under the Confederacy, was
with each State. 1t could be done, or refused,
at the discretion of the State Did the fra
mers of the Constitution intend to leave this
matter as it was under the Confederation
The provision introduced shows an intention
to make some provision on the subject Bot
by the argument it is said, the provision madc
LETT the power with the States, and did not
vest it in the General Government The an
swer to this is it was in the States before the
provision, and, on this view, it added nothing
to the power Of the States. Ii such be the true
construction OF the provision, it fixes an act of
consummate folly on the trainers of the Con-
sttutiOD, and on the members OF the State
Conventions who adopted it, In laying the
foundation of General Government, they in
corporated into the fundamental law useless
provision and omitted to provide for an emer-
gency which was felt and complained of in
one. half of the States The men of that day
were not likely to be guilty of such an oms-
sion. They understood the Federal and State
powers too well, not to know that without some
effective provision on this subject the super
structure which they we're about to rear would
soon be overthrown. There were the circum.
stances under which the Constitution was
framed and adopted With the abstract prin-
ciples Of Slavery, courts called to administer
the law have nothing to do. 1t is for the PEG.
pie, who are sovereign, and their representa-
tives, in making constitutions, and in the en-
actment of laws. to consider the laws of Ma
ture, and the immutable principles Of right
This is field which judges cannot explore
Their action il limited to conventional rights
They look to the law, and to the law only A
disregard Of this, by the judicial powers, would
undermine and oyerturn tho social compact.
Ii the law be injudicious or oppressive, let it
| ta laI ,nAi al Rut a
which the judiciary cannot reach.
The citizen of u slave State has n right, uu-
der the Constitution aud laws of the Union, to
have his fugitive slave delivered up on claim
being made and no State can defeat or OBJ
struct this constitutional right. The judicial
power Of the Union has the primary or event
ual power to determine all rights arising un-
der the Constitution. This will not be contro-
vertod by any legal mind, which has properly
investigated the great principles Of the Consti-
tuition. And the question now made is not in
principle, different from numerous class of
cases arising under powers prohibited to tho
States.
The worthy and estimaLle gentleman who
read an argument on this occasion, in COM
mcntng on the cases covered by the Fugitive
Law, embraced all cases Of contract and even
that between minister and his congregation
He supposes il the minister should leave his
congregation before his stipulated engagement
had transpired, that he was liable 10 be ar
rested and returned to his congregation under
the Fugitive Law.
This is a case, uudcr this law, which no one
before has supposed TO be embraced by it And
if the law did cover such case, it would be-
the most difficult to carry out Of any other
which has been imagined IL the minister could
DO returned, neither the court nor the congre-
CATION could compel him to preach. No pro.
iession or class Of men could be less likely to
do anything on eompuia0n.
But the law applies to no case Of contract
Where the parties to the agreement are oapa-
bic of making contract the remedy for a
breach Of it Is by action at law. 10 the case