Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1853-09-15

q palpable misconstructlon of the Constltu'
ton, and am egregious mistake of IFS PHO
sophy and policy, by these same contempt.
rary legislators. who 'twere not ignorant OF
any of the provisions of the Constitution
as the Judge has it,
With all due respect for the opinion OF
the learned and able Judge, we take leave
to say that the Constitution is not contract
to be construed bv the intentions OF The
parties or persons who made 1t, however
gathered; but the intention of the instru-
ment must be gained from itself, from It's
oWn provisions and zoe are not bound ny
any notions, opinions, or purposes, OIL us
actual trainers; for we are now for our
selves its subjects, objects, and expos'tors'
Judicial construction is of authority with
US for reasons that have nothing to do with
extra-judicaI notions and intentions con-
cerningit We think, therefore, that the
Judges auxiliary argument in this matter
is wrong in principle. and in this particular
case very particularly unfortunate
Again. lie quotes the fugitive clause OF
the Constitution, and takes occasion to add
=" This Constitution has been considered
the fundamental law Of the land; 1t Is the
foundation of all the glory OF the country /;
all our civil virtues have hourIshed under
it; it secured the fruits Of our Revolution"
The English Judges are accustomed to
say as much aud about the same thing, for
their Constitution, although none of them
are exactly certain that they have one, or
what II means, if they have. And we sup
pose the Jews might have been as eloquent
aud as igAM about the laws OF Moses, al
though he law of divorce at the discretion
OF the husband stood upon It's pages just as
the rendition clause is in our Cons tuition.
Jesus had his opinion Ut the divorce pro-
vision, nevertheless, and he expressed it.,
Judges are excellent in legal logic, but they
often make sorry figure IN philosophy and
poetry. When they have given their own
kind Of reason for "a judgment, they ought
to let it stand at that.
To the objection that this provision in the
Constitution depends on the States for its
execution, aud therefore not within the
sphere of Federal legislation he replies first,
that there can be no law without a sane
ton" We do not unde stand this answer,
and the Judge does not bell US out Of the
difficulty A iaw, indeed, may not be good
which provides no penalty for lis intraclion,
but provision in Constitution may he
good enough as a provision, though there
be no way provided for its enforcement. -
What penalty, for instance, is provided, or
how to lie executed, for the refusal by one
Of the States to give - full faith and credit
to the public acts, records, aud Judicial pro-
ceedings of every other StateP'
Again: The citizens of each State
shall be entitled 10 ali privileges and lmmn-
mites of of citizens in the several States. "
We would thank Judge Mclean to look
up the constitutional penalty for South Car
ollnas nfraction of this provision in the
matter of imprisonng Massachusetts cti-
zens, and apply it. Or does he know OF
any way Of compelling one of the Cover
nors of these States, Governor Lowe, OF
Maryland, for example, to surrender fugi.
tives from the Justice of Pennsylvania!
Here are three of the clauses of the We.
ry fourth article of the Constitution, of
which the slave rendition clause makes the
fourth, which, as we think, have 40 consti.
tutional penalties annexed that the Fede
raj Government can any way execute: and
if we are right. the fugitive slave provision
may, in like manner, stand Al the mercy
OF the State sw4reigutes, an 4 be referred
to their discretion, and yet be a very good
provision, though not in any proper sense d
taw
In this view of the matter it is not alb.
surd or impossible that the Constitution
should be held to vest the power of surren-
dering slaves in the States in which they
may be found truant.
But the Constitution is fnll of provisions
which the Federal power cannot enforce
either directly or indirectly. How is it to
compel the election of United States Sena.
torsl How did il enforce the Judgment o
the United States Supreme Court agains
Georgia in the Cherokee case? How couC
it have done so?
The Judges argument on this point is
we apprebend, good for nothing.
The Judge continues "The Legislatures
of the States are prohibited from passing :
law obstrucling the master IN pursuit of hl'
escaped servant. Suppose {
State to pass a law directly opposed 10 thl'
clause, and nAic'lng penalty" Well
then, Judge, we answer, each law would be
void But the other branch of the provls
ion the fugitive "shall be delivered up. OF
claim of the party 10 VIII such service OF
labor may be due" The prohibitory
part of the provision is clear. beyont
dispute; but where is the concluslseness o
the allegation that had the power TO en-
force the requirement OF the last sentenct
been left with the States. the kidnapping
act of PENNSYLVANIA "wou d not have beef
void" as it was declared in the Prigg case
That law was pronounced Invalid and un
constitutional, because it forbade the mas
ter's right OF reception without legal process,
no,sbecause it provided for the rendition o
the fugitive under forms aud conditions o
its own. That decision did not settle MOI
undertake to settle the right of the Sta,es
10 hgislatc for The rendition Of iugltives un
der the Constitution, but it did declare tha
no legislation, either by Congress or by The
States, is nSesSssfy To the reclamation o
an escaping slave, any more than stray
horse. And when little more disturbance
and few more cross accidents intervene
the Slave Power will fall back upon the max
ed right of grab-Iaw-putting the whole bust
ness Of slave-catching here just where it be
gan in Alphabetically outside of all law
aud independent of it.
Under this branch Of the Judges opinion
he contents himself with saying that Con
gress undoubtedly may tegisiate upon the
provisions of those other clauses of the
fourth article which we have mentioned
but he does not pretend to say how sucl