Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1854-07-03
Con s,;,r1iouaI obIigntionn.

repudiatipsq The Interpretations aclich hare been
placed upoa Il 6v Congress, and By the Supreme
Court. In other words, he sets up his right
of private Judgment, and repudiates that por-
ton of the Constitution which does not square
with his own preconceived notions of justice
and propriety.
Mr.. Sumner avows his right to interpret
the Constitution for himself, and holds that he
takes the oath to support it, not according to
the received Interpretation but as he wader-
stands it.
We copy the above notice of Mr.. Summers
able and eloquent defence of his own position,
and the rights of his constituents, from the
Boston Journal, of last Friday. Upon read
ing the article, of which the above is only
parI, two facts seem perfectly plain; first, that
the editor of the Journal is SO bitterly preju-
diced against Mr.. Sumner, that he cannot, by
any possibility, do him justice; and secondly,
that, even if disposed to do him justice, he
could not do it fully, under such misappre-
hension as he appears to be laboring under, in
regard to "the plain meaning of provision of
the Constitution. The provision of the
Constitution, the meaning Of which the Jour
nal thinks is SO plain 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 lao or
regulation therein, be discharged from such SER
vice or labor, but shall be delivered up on
claim of the party to whom such service or la
Dor may be due
The pro-siavery proclivities of the editor of
the Journal. would doubtless impel him, in
case he should be informed that fugitive
slave was making his way over Charlestown
Bridge, with design to escape into Canada,
to rush frera his sanctum, procure horse and
chaise at the nearest livery stable, and calling
to his aid Pat Riley. Augur-hoie Byrnes. Asa
o. Butman or any other official who takes the
same view that he does of his constitutional OBJ
legations, and drive off at full speed in pursuit Of
the fugitive. By such an act, the editor of the
Journal would exercise his right of private
judgment as to the meaning Of this clause of
the constitution. Suppose, for a further IL
lustration, that himself and Riley overtake the
slave at the end of the bridge. but that having
no desire to be carried into bondage, and be-
ing armed with club, the slave knocks Riley
down, and appears TO be in fair way to es-
cape from his remaining pursner. In this
emergency, the editor Of the Journal, calls
upon some Of his friends aud neighbors, who
are membess Of the General Court, and under
oath to support the Constitution of the United
States, as well as of Massachusetts,, to give
kim little assistance.
They refuse to do 50. at first, and then he
reminds them Of their constitutional obliga-
tons to help him catch the slave. Still they
are ineredulcus, and wish him to state where
the obligation Is enjeined. Having the clause
of the Constitution at his tongues end, the
Editor quotes itas above, vsr5Gtim ct litsrGtins,
but, being men capable of understanding the
meaning Of words as well as himself, and hav-
ing no particular desire to engage in such dir
y business. unless there is constitutional
for thsm to do SO, they very can
idly declare that they cannot zee the obliga-
lion as he does. He ASSURES them that the
Supreme Court has affirmed that it is their
duty that Congress has passed
q law requiring such as them to assist in
fugitives through the free States
The men appealed to thus, have also sincere
regard for the Constitution of their country,
they are sensible of their oaths to support that
but. claiming the right of private
judgment, which is the last right any citizen
Of republic should yield, they insist thar
whatever the Supreme Court may have affirm
cd, whatever law Congress may have passed,
there is nothing in that clause Of the Consti-
tuition or in any other clause of the Constitu-
ton which, in thsir Judgment, imposes any
such obligation upon them, and they still re-
fuse to assist, and, as the editor of the Journal
cannot capture the slave alone. he makes his
escape. And who viii say these men have not
acted as becomes free citizens of republic, or
that they have perjured themselves by acting
thus, even though under oath to support the
Constitution
Thismaling blcodhounds ofmen is nowhere
in the Constitution. and the trainers Of that
instrument never intended that it should be.
If they had so intended they would have SO
written it, for they knew what they wanted
The trainers Of the Constitution were some of
them shareholders. They wished to provide
against the acknowledgements, by the laws of
one State Of those whom the laws of another
held to service or labor. They, therefore, put
into the Constitution this clause, which is
strictly and exclusively prohibitory, and there
they left it. It for5ids certain State legisla-
fion.--or, to speak still more accurately, it de-
elares that such Legislation shall not, in GER
tain specified cases, produces certain specified
effect. Fugitives from labor shall not be freed
by the laws of States into which they may
escape. They shall not in consequence Of
any such law Or regulation. be discharged
from service 50 as to be kept, by operation Of
law, from those to whom it may be due; but
on the contrary, they shall be delivered up on
claim. s
A legal claim always presumes legal and
constitutional tribunal in which to test It's val.
idity, Il disputed, and it is very clear that the
trainers ofthe Constitution never designed that
. claim for fugitive from labor should be set
tied by any other forms of law than those
used FOR the settlement of ali other cIaims.--
Had they 80 designed. they would have writ
ten it in the bond. The great trouble with