Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1850-1854, 1853-04-15

composed the necessities of future great
and mighty people. They consequently fra
med an instrument, SO nicely and prudently
balancing national and state rights, SO per-
fectly adjusting the equipoise of national and
state authority, that over half a century of the
most searching scrutiny, by the profoundest
intellects, has failed to detect any weakness
or ineongruity. 1t may then be expected
that the powers of the general government
are perfectly defined and circumscribed. The
constitution is an instrument of grants ofpow-
er, of prohibitions, and of eompacts. Section
eight, of article first, furnishes numerous il
Illustrations of the explicitness and unambigu-
Gus character of the grants of power conferred
upon Congress, Then follows, in section 8,
list of prohibitions applying to the general
government. Section ten the same, apply
ing TO the several states. The language of
grants is, 1.-The Congress shall have power"
or, " The congress may determine or do" SO
and SO. The language of prohibitions is
equally clear and definite Section second,
of article fourth, furnishes illustrations of the
language of compacts. Section first, of arti-
Gle four, one of compact accompanied with
a grant of power, and section third, Of article
third, the same, of grant of power, accom-
panied with a prohibition Section second,
of article four, is simple triad of compacts,
the last of the section being the one upon
which the fugitive slave act is based 1t most
clearly contains no grant of power-it simply
imposes mutual obligation upon the seve-
raj states. The language can indicate no.
thing more.--lt is as follows: No person
held to service or labor in one state, under
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall,
in consequence of any law or regulation there
in, be discharged from such service or labour,
but shall be delivered up on claim ofthe p If
ty to whom such service or labour may be
due" TO vest in this provision a grant of
power, there should have been added, ''and
the congress may, by general laws, prescribe
the manner ofsuch delivery" Itwould have
correspondent with section one, ofarticle four,
which contains not only a compact but a
grant of power to congress. Article ten, of
amendments, relating to reserved powers, says
1.-The powers not delegated to the U. S. by the
constitution nor prohibited by to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively, to the
people" No power touching the rendition
by the constitution, and the power over such
subject is not thereby prohibited to the states,
therefore, the power necessarily lodges with
the states, or the people. Congress did then,
in passing the fugitive slave act, usmp the
rights of the states,or psop'e,an as such usur-
patton, said act ought to be repealed.
Section 5. of article first, of our state con-
s!itution, provides that "the right of trial by
! jury shall remain inyioiate; and shall extend
to all cases at law, without regard to the
amount in controversy" and the United
States constitution provides that "In suits at
common law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right oftrial
by jury shall be preserved" The fugitive
| slave act violates 10th of these provisions,
and renders them perfectly nugatory. Both
the state and the United States constitutions
provide that "che privilege of the writ of ha-
beas corpus shall not be suspended, unless
when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the
public safety may require it," Our state con-
stitution further provides that "writs of error
shall never be p.ohibted by law"
How does the fugitive law regard these
provisions? With Ia contemptuous etfrontery
1t over-rides them all, and coolly riots in the
destruction of every safeguard of personal lib
erty, and Knocks at the state rights as though
they were but shreds of cob-web. "Strict
construction" is fundamental article in the
political faith of every enlightened constitu-
tionalist, of all parties, and the adoption and
application of such construction inevitably
leads the mind to the clearest conviction of
! ~, LII & ba
der discussion, as a positive violation of state
sovereignty. 1t presents still another obnox-
ious feature, however wherein its unconstitu-
tional character is too apparent to need argu-
ing.
According to the terms of the constitution,
states alone are required to deliver up fugi-
tive slaves. The general government cannot,
under the constitution, know the institution
of slavery. Every slave escaping the terrific
~, exclusively national, thereby becomes free
necessarily, and there is no power in the con-
stitution to re-enslaye him.
The territories cannot be parties to the
compact for the delivery of fugitive slaves,
for their relations to the federal government
are such as to preclude the power of forming
any compact. The general government can
be under no obligation to deliver fugitive
slaves, because no slavery can constitutional
" subsst within her exclusive jurisdiction,
and, by parity of reasoning, she can never
constitutionally recognize the existence of
slavery within her territories. The fugitive
act desecrates national soil, and, in conse
duence, is unconstitutional.
In conclusion, your committee are of opin-
ion that the act in question ought to be re-
| pealed for the reasons, that it annuls the writ
of habeas corpus, denies the right of trial by
jury, usurps state rights, and invades the ma
tional domain; in all of which, it is undeni-
ably unconstitutional And further, that it
is constructiyely unconstitutional touching all
the remaining seven specifications enuTnera-
tel at the commencement of this report. 4
Your committee therefore submit the fol-
lowing joint resolution, and recommend It's
| passage:
Resolved, by the Assembly, the Senate
concurring, that our Senators in Congress be,
and they are hereby instructed, and our rep
resentatiyes requested, to use in their official
CAPACITY, all constitutional measures for the