The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1853-08-25
The Cincinnati Slave Case

Irn;ted States Supreme Court, for adJaaica-
ZION The fugitive had the peweriui ASSIST
,noo of Mr.. Birney, as counsel and every
nossible objection was taken both to the law
and to its application in this particular case
T,o decision of Judge Mclean is publish
Oh at full length, in the Cincinnati CONNER
.;s, Of the 18th. Ii is document OF great
newer. but so long that we cannot make room
for II We make, however few extracts.
II appesrs that McQuerry had escaped
from his master some four years since, and
since that time resided in Cincinnati. The
far. tba. he wa. a slave was fully established
~, ,v;t,asses who had known him from boy
hood.
Mr. Birney took the ground that it had not
haen nroyen that kentucky was slavehold-
;,g State. On this point, the Judge took
different view, and said
I,ssss of the Supreme Court of the United States
ecosnize the laws of ali the States do the State
Comrrs the laws of each county The jurisdiction OF
the Supreme Court of the United States extends
throughout the Union, and into the Territories It's
;rdses are presumed know the laws of each State
and the extent of State Jurisdiction do not say that
such would be the rule were this examination neiofe
a State Judge Commissioner OF the United
States Ia many of the States specla law mas peen
passed recognizing tke statute laws OF other states
In such cases nothing more than an exhibition OF the
s;amte law would be necessary. But where trial
ike this is had in State where no such provision eN-
ISIS the State Judge, and perhaps the Commissioner,
;ht reonre le gaI proof of the existence of slavery
in the State where the claimant resided But this Is
not necessary before judge OF the court whose Ju-
risdicton is commensurate with the ~hoIe country
Kennedy is known to be u slave State.
The declaration of Senator from Nlrglnia Is allud
cd TO in support of the argument that slavery does
net exist by law in the slaveholding States / am
really sorry hear this argument The distinguished
Senator speaking OF Territories into which our
friends of the South desired take their slave pro-
perv and declared that shareholders had the right TO
take slaves where there was no legal recognition of
the relation. This was error. The great princi-
ME is this: SLAVERY is Local and CAN ONLY Ex-
IsT The THE AUTHORITY OF LAW.
tits insisted that the fugitive slave laws of ,9a
and of 80 ere not cons.itutona-that Congress has
no power to such law, tina. the power of en-
forcing the constitutional provision is with the States
In the case of Prgg vs.. the State OF Fennsy wanna,
the Judges of the Supreme Court decided without
dissent, that Congress had the power TO legsate on
this subject. The Supreme Court of every State in
the Union before which the question has been raised
has recognised the same power IN Congress At an
early period in the history of Massachusetts, and DOS
sby in other States though it has attracted my
attention-ths doctrine may have been doubted, but
it has since been affirmed and no court of respectable
standing now doubts it.
As soon after the adoption of the Constitution as
1898, we tud act of Congress providing for the
rendition OF persons owing service or labor IN one
State, escaping into another" This act passed
by Congress, of whose members, If | rightly
remember, delegates in the Convention that
framed the federal constitution; all were coempora-
neous with the Convention, and the discussions that
preceded and attended its deliberations. Those who
enacted the law of '93 ignorant of any of
the provisions of the Constitution for they had been
scanned with great ability, and especially il Viz
gina-
There is weight of authority or this point, which
be conferred any other IL the Constitution
Independent of this authority which silence all
objection we shall arrive at the conclusion by
looking the act arising under the constitution
Is the construction of that instrument in of
vital points. never TO be settled! If no respect is
paid TO the weight of concurrent authorities for half
century, the basis OF our social fabric will be shak
en-there will ensue disorder and confusion, will
there be protection to rights The clause Of the Con-
stitution alluded to, is
mo person held to service or labor in che State
under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall
In consequence OF any law regulation therein be
discharged from such service labor but shall be
delivered up claim of the party whom such SER
vice or labor may be due"
In commenting upon the ground taken by counsel.
that this provision Of the Constitution depends the
States for It's execution, the Judge said:
There be no Ea,v ritout sanction. This applies
to Human it does Divine law. The legislatures
OF the several States are prohibited from passing
law obstruetng the master in pursuit OF ms escaped
servant who must be given up on proof by the clam
that service labor is due. Suppose stare 20
pass law directly opposed to this clause, and iniic
ing penalty That the case in rgg vs. the srate
of Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court OF the un.
to the Constitutiun, and Therefore void Had the
power enforce the provisions OF the Consttutoi
been left with the States this act OF PennsyiVam'
would not have been void But for the clause in tn,
Constitution that have recited, every slave woul'
be free ON touching the sou 81 on srst
did not recognise slavery JW o'"'" 10" 0's '~''' y!
authority Of tdtr. ,.:..; :; o,n:.
and it is posye as to the giving up of persons
Caned from service labor The States could not bt
compelled to give up these taslnSe natives ey a law o
tioetbe oreanic law of the land, and it is more thar
a Recommendation. am aware that the word slave
,tt.1ffa acphJan cl.l,a.
the convention and it caused deep excitement il
fhe nubic mind The constitutional provision in thi
Tegard was the result of compromise. For sayin.
.bis have the authority of Chief Justice Marshall
This right of rendition, then is one which the Cit
zens ct one sac ay oi3 ana mus receive OF ano
TO carry out and perpetuate this right
No Cour. has ever doubted the Consitutiopelit,
of legislation providing for the OF fugitive
from justice.
which says that full faith and credit shall be given t,
the public acts and records of other States, that M
power is conferred on the Federal Government Il
enforce IT, Is this sol The Fundamental law decIar
that citizens of each State shall be entitled to all tn
rights and imunities OF the citizens OF the severa
States. Undoubtedly Congress may legisate upol
these provisions
1t would be singular if there was no sanction to th
provision upon this NEST difficult of all questions
question ably and extensively discussed the tim
the Constitution framed; for slavery then existe
in about one-haf the States. Before the adoption
that instrument slaves had been reclaimed in variou
ways in many instances by comfy, in others by III
obstructed force. There existed virtual practices
compromise before the written compromise of tn
Constitution But difficulties had ARISEN, and Their
fore this provision.
Nor can there be doubt, that the term "persou
held TO service or labor" applies principally 10 ne
sons held as slaves.
Occupying the sacred Office of Judge | have n
eaght ss-s - indulge my sympathetic sould hav
been gratifying to have found that this detepdap
was free man. instead of slave because sucb r.
ult gratifying to those whese feelings are oppose,
slavery in the abstract In such case Il Is the fe
duty OF the Judge to use more than ordinary caution
The laws ofl7s8 and 1850, as regards this 1000 49,
clearly within the provisions of the Corstitution ~
Lam, therefore, bound 10 remQnd he fyo;t;ys ~ Il
mdstsf. 'NS''''e % ~
After this decision, Mr.. Jolife moved for writ "a
rertloran to the Supreme Court.
The Court raid that there could be no apueal froA
lne deelson OF a Judge the Supreme Court of til,
United states made at chambers The point has H.
Ess certain, been decised by the Supreme Cent :
as was Wiling however, to give any reason he rim
ior counsel TO investigate the question '
AZ the suggestion of the Court Ii u,as s,ay,, :,
iahsea thsi me CLAIMANT Mr.. Miller should trta
lnto DONG Tor SIu0 conditional upon his retrrn;,
McGuef1y 10 TINS State IN 1t should be deriaa
THAT the case could be taken TO the Supreme Caar
At the conclusion OF his argument, Mr. Ware =,
ted that Mr.. Miller would enlancipate his slave h
fhat purpose Or he would take the appraiseIae
of disinterested parties at Lexington.
Mr.. Miller remarked that he willing to I'll
- - 1&S h. T. \