Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1854-08-09

stitutionality of the law in question was
made point in 1923 in the case OF The
Commonwealth vs. Griffith e Pick IL
and the justices of the Supreme Court OF
/ that State were unanimously of opinion
that the law was constitutional although
Mr.. Justice Thacher insisted that the flu
gitive should be seized by the process oil
law of the State where he is found So
also in 1886 in the case of The Common
wealth vs.. Aves Us Prick 1887 the same
court treat the act of 1898 as enacted in
pursuance of the constitution. and as late
as 1851, in the celebrated Thomas Sims
case, e Cush 2S5.) the constitutionality
/ of the fugitive law of 1850, the law to
which objections are made in the case now
before us, the Supreme Court of Massa-
chusetts after a very elaDaate argument
aad examination of the question, again
affirmed the power of Congress to legis,
late upon the subject of fugitives from
labor or service, and without word of
dissent from any member of that learned
/ Bench, declared the act of 1850 to be a
constitutional enactment
Another case In which the power Of
congress to legislate upon this subject
and the validity of the act of 1898 were
denied in argument is the case of Jack.
negro man, VS.. Martin, (I2 Wend 3ll(
where in very lengthy opinion of the
Supreme Court of New York, as given
| by Mr.. Justice Nelson, the act is held to
be constitutional and valid
! L have thus adyerted to several cases
IN the courts of other states in which the
constitutional power of congress to act
upon the subject embraced within the
third clause of section 2 of article 4. of
the constitution of the United States is
recognized and [ have done so because
| the proverbial wisdom and purity of the
men who composed those courts have
taught US all to look to their opinions for
instruction upon every subject connected
with the science of the law But / freely
admit that we are not bound to pursue the
same mode OF argument, nor to arrive at
the same conclusions that these courts
have pursued or arrived at, except SO far
as we deem them consistent with sound
reason yet [ can hardly conceive it pos
sible that question Of so delicate and
important a nature as the one now before
US. could have occupied the attention of
those tribunals without eliciting thor
cugh examination, and precluding mistake,
1t is not important, however, to enquire
how far the adjudications of the courts of
our sister states ought to influence or CON
troll our decision on this point inasmuch
as L have already said the decisions of
the Supreme Court of the United States,
have settled the question; and until that
court shall find occasion to review and
change It's own view of the subject, it is
neither becoming or proper on my part,
to dlsobey the official requirements invol-
we'd IN the decisions of that court, or to
test their correctness by recurrence to
the history of the times or events which
produced the constitutional provision, or
the intention of the trainers of the con-
stitution and the rules of Interpretation
by which 1t should be construed
In Prigg VS.. The Commonwealth Of
Penn, (l6 Peters. 539.) the constitutions
aity of the act of 1893. concerning fugi-
tives, so FAR as it related to fugitives from
service or labor was presented for decis-
ion to the Supreme Court of the L States
and if there was cause thoroughly and
ably discussed by counsel on both sides.
and calmly and elaborately examined by
the court, that is the cause The best
professional talent which could be fur
uished by the states Of Pennsy lvauia and
Maryland were enlisted in the argument.
and the opinion of the court sustaining
the constitutionality of the act of con
gress was given by the very man who has
furnished to the profession our most val
ued work on the constitution of the e. S
This decision so far as it asserted the
power of congress over the subject was
concurred IN by every member of the
court, although In relation to other points,
and III regard to the mode of reasoning
adopted by Judge Story, several of the
Judges dissented
Five years afterwards, in the case of
Wharton Jones VS.. John Van Zandt. g
Howard, 2l5) the question was again
urged IN the same court. and Mr. Justice
Woodbury., in delivering the opinion of
the court, disposes of the point whether
the act OF '93, was ropugnant to the con-
stltutlon, by saying, after few remarks
upon the subject: That this act of con-
gress, then, is not repugnant to the con-
stitution must b considered as among
the settled adju'ications Of this court"
And again, III aioote VS.. The People Of
the State OF Illinois, (It Howard, l3) the
doctrine OF tue case of Prigg VS. The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is reit-
Grated, and declared to be that the gov
ernment is clothed with appropriate au-
thorlty and functions to enforce the deliv-
cry or claim of the owner, aud has prop
erly exercised it la the act of congress of
18th Feb, 1898
From these decisions am led to view
the subject as definitely settled, and the
maxim stare decisis, as entirely appIica-
BILE I understand the Chief Justice 20
feel himself concluded by these decisions.
so far as they declare the act Of 1898. to
have been the exercise of constitutional
power by congress to legislate, but that
because they do not settle the question.
whether the fugitive slave is entitled to
trial by jury, Of the fact of owing service
or labor, by a jury of the State where
he is seized and, because the act of 1850
coufers certain powers on Commissioners