Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-08-27
JUDGE M'LEAN's OPINION.

to say, that it is not necessary to prove in Of
this kind, the existence of slavery in Kentucky.
It might be necessary before a Judge Of State
court or before Commissioner. But the iuris-
dicton of the Federal court extends over all the
States of the Union, and its judges nrc supposed
to he acquainted with the laws of each State and
the extent of State jurisdiction.
Slavery exists only by local law.
In the slavcholding States the laws provide for
the condition Of master and slave: they limit the
power Of the former md protect the rights Of the
latter. To deny the egulizaton Of the relation in
these States is to shut our cyes to what is written
and to the decisions of their Courts.
am gratifcd that in the examination aud argu-
ment of this case there has been uniformly gem
tlemanly bearng--no abusive cpithets were used,
none were expected. This must draw the appro-
baton of all sensible persons
There has been no evidence on the part Of the
defendant except the admissions of the claimants
which were that McQuerry had lived four
years in the State of Ohio, during which time he
had been recognized treated and considered rs Il
free man. This was proper. This is the theory of
our laws end constitution. Every man in Ohio.
without regard to color, is presumed to bc II free
man her laws do not sanction the tread of slave
This treatment of McQuemy in Ohio therefore is
nothing moro than the presumption Of the law which,
in my judgement, is countcructcd by the conclusive
proof Of the claimant that he escaped into this
State from "scryicc and labor due" in Kentucky.
1t is insisted that the fugitive slave laws of 9S
and 80 are not constitutonal-that Congress has
no power to enact such law-that the power of
enforcing the constitutional provisions is with the
States.
This argument has been frequently advanced by
gentlemen who have discussed this great question,
and am not sure but that it has been announced
in some platforms that have been framed
will rnfpr IA tlp iu1i.fr1 l,.,
nzcd the power Of Congress to enact Laws providing
for the return of fugtilcS from labor. In the case
of Prigg rs the State Of Pennsylvania. the Judge.
of the Supreme Court decided, without dissent that
Congress had the powGr to lcgslutc this subject.
some of the Judges thought the State hal right
to legislatc ON the same subject but there was nu
dissent from the decision that Congress had tho
power to adopt the law of 'gs-tllc LAW Of 50 was
not then enacted
The Supreme Court Of every State in tic Union,
before which the question has been raised has re-
cognizcd the same power in Congress. At an carly
period in the history of Massachusetts, and possi-
Dly in other Staos, though it has not attracted my
attention-ths doctrine may have been doubted,
but 1t has since been affirmed and no Court of re-
spectacle standing now doubts it.
This is strong authority in rcg,lrd to the power
of Congress to lcgslatc upon the sui cct Authority
certainly. that should oNcrlear individual opinion.
unless the numlcr of individuals entertaining an
opposite opinion, is great enough to change the or
ganc law Of the land To such change the efforts
of those who deny the power of Congress to lrgis-
late ON the subject of Slavery within the States
might, and not improperly bc directed
The Federal Constitution was adopted in lISI
It was discussed by the several States who accepted
it,
Various essays were written by distinguished
citizens, and the instrument wax very extensively
discussed
As soon after the adoption Of the Constitution ms
lI9S, we find an act of Congress providing for the
rendition OF persons owing service in one State
escaping into another" This act was passed by
n Congress, some Of whose members, if rightly
remember, were delegates in the Convention that
framed the Federal constitution; all were coten.
pornneous with the Convention and the discussions
that preceded and attended its deliberations
Those who enacted the law of '93 werc not Ignorant
of any of the provisions of the Constitution. fol
they had been scanned with great ability, ard os
pccaly in Virginia
There is weight Of authority on this point whicl
cannot be centercd ON any other in the Constitution
Independent of this authority, which must silcnc,
all objection, we shall arrive ut the conclusion
by looking ut the act rs arising under the Consitu
ton. Is the construction of that instrument il
some of its vital points never to be settled?
! II no respect is paid to the weight of concurren
authorities for hnf century, the basis of our s0ca
fabric will he shakcn-there will cnsue dis6rdc
and coniuson nor will there DC protection to rights
The clause of the Constitution alluded to is
"No person held to service or labor in one Stat
under the laws thereof escaping into another shnl
in consequence of any law or regulation therein b,
discharged from such service or labor: but shall b,
delivered up on claim of the party to whom sucl
service or labor may be due"
This Constitution has been considered the funda
mental law of the land; it is the foundation of al
the glory of the country all civil virtues hay
iourished under 1t; it secured the fruits of GU
Revolution.
1t is contended that this provision in the Consti
tuition is to depend on the States for its execution
! | will ask tho gentleman who read the able an,
ingenious argument in support of this proposition
.lr that IL law which provides no penalty for its in
iractiony He rs too good theologian TO admit tn
i consequences of his argument.
! There can he no hio wihom q sanction. This al
plies to Human as it does to Divine law.
The Legislatures Of the several States arc Pre-
hibited from passing law obstructing the maste
in pursuit of his escaped servant who must b
given up ON proof of the claimant that service o
labor IS due. Suppose State to pass a law directl
opposed to this clause, and inAictng q Renalt,
4 That was the case in Prigg rs the State Of Penn
lsylyaua, and the Supreme Court of the Unite
states declared it nugatory; 1t wns in opposition
the Constitution, and therefore void Had the pow
Ter to enforce the provisions of the Constitution boe
lett with the States this act of PENNSYLVANIA woul
not have been void But for the clause in the Cor
stitution, which / have reeitod, every slave woul
ge iree oD touching the soil of State whose law
G,d nos recognize slayery-.tor s!arey can only eri
dy authority Of lac.
The provision in the Constitution is prohibitor,
and 1t Is positive rs to the "gving up' Of person
escaped from service or labor.
The States could not be compelled to give up tlcs
ltugitlyes by n law of Congress, but the provision
found in the Constitution--the organic law of III
tland, and 1t Is more than recommendation. ~
aWaro that the word "Slnye" is not In tho
ton but the subject was debated in the Convention
and 1t caused deep excitement in tho public mint
! The Constitutional provision in this regard WAS ii
result OF acompromiso. For saying this have III
authority of Chief Justice Marshall, glis right
rendition thcn, is one in which the citizens of on