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

tory upon the several States, but grants
no power to Congress- This is the view
of the subject taken by brother Smith
before whom the case was heard at Cham
bers, who held the law in question to be
unconstitutional and void, for several rea
sons.
The counsel for the respondent has with
marked ability, met and contended against
the objections to the validity of this law
and from all the information which | have
derived from the lengthy arguments il
/ the present case, from the nature and his
tory OF the clause In the Constitution ot
the United States. in pursuance whereof
the law was enacted by Congress, as well
as from an examination into the several
cases reported in the federal and state
courts in which this precise question has
been adludicated, [ am satisfied that Con-
gress has the constitutional power to leg
Islate upon the subject of fugitives from
service or labor. in order to give effect tc
| the third clause of section 2, of article 4,
OF the Constitution of the United States
If this were new question, and [ did
not feel the control of former adiucations
by tribunals composed of men of the
most eminent endowments, [ would incline
to the belief that the power to legislate
upon this subject, while it belonged to
Congress IN virtue of the Constltut ion.
might be properly exercised by the sever
al States In other words, that the pow
er is concurrent, and SO long as the state
legislation Is not repugnant to, or incon-
slstert with, the provisions made by Con
gress, 1t is permissible This is, | think.
necessary conclusion from the language
of the constitution itself, where it de-
clares that the fugitive ''shall be deliver
ed up on the claim of the party to whom
such service or labor may be due The
injunction thus imposed upon the states
Is no less obligatory upon them, than is
any other provision contained in their
respective constitutions, because the con
stltutlon of the United States, in all its
provisions, is lot only component part
OF the law OF each of the states. but is re
ally the supreme law [ acknowledge
that when congress has acted upon the
subject, their action, so far as it goes,
must necessarily be exclusive but | am
unable to appreciate the reasoning by
which the several states should be pre-
cluded from legislating in aid of the pro
visions made by congress so long as their
legislation does not in any respect impede
or conflict with the enactment of Con-
gress.
In Houston VS.. Moore, 6 Wheat 48,)
Mr.. Justice Story, in speaking of TIE
grant of powers to congress by the con-
stItutlon, says "a reasonable interpreta-
ton of that instrument necessarily leads
to the Ennci that Tho
ed are never exclusive of similar powers
existing in the States except where the
constitution has, in express terms. given
an exclusive power to congress or the ex-
ercIse OF like power is prohibited to the
States" He then proceeds to enumer-
ate three classes or cases or instances in
which the power Of congress is exclusive
and proceeds thus-"In all other cases
not falling within the classes already men
toned, 1t seems unquestionable that the
States retain concurrent authority with
congress, not only under the eleventh
amendment of the constitution. but upon
the soundest principles of general reason
ing. There is this reserve, however, that
IN cases of concurrent authority, where
the laws of the States and of the Union
are IN direct and manifest collision on the
same subject, those Of the Union being
the supreme law of the land. are of para
mount authority and the State laws so
far.and so far only, as such incompatibility
exists, must necessarily yield
But upon this subject [ do not feel at
liberty to advance reasoning or authority
because 1t has received the critical exam
ination of many of the greatest and most
profound Judges who have adorned the
courts of this Union whose opinions and
decisions are usually received by us upon
all legal questions as satisfactory if net
conclusive authority, and especially so be-
cause the question has been authoritative-
ly decided by the Supreme Court of the
United jStates-the last and final consti-
tutICnal exponent Upon this as upon
all other questions arising out of the con
stitution of the United States or the laws
of congress, | am bound to yield obedi-
ence to the decisions of that tribunal for
upon such questions we are subordinate
We are accustomed on most of the sub
jects mooted and discussed In this as in
other courts of law to consult the decis-
ions of other coordinate courts upon the
same or kindred subjects, and in relation
to the constitutionality of congressional
action upon the clause concerning fugi-
tives from service or labor | deem it not
inappropriate to refer to several eases In
which the power of congress to legislate
on the subject has either beer tacitly or
expressly recognized or avowed and main.
tanned 1t may be remarked here that
for the purpose of the present case it is
not important whether the power under
the constitution vests in congress alone.
or in the several States concurrently with
congress, inasmuch as the legislature of
this State has never acted oa this mat
ter.
The case of Glen VS. Hodges, q John
67) was before the Supreme Court of
New York in 1912 Itwas an action of
trespass Vi ct arms for seizing and taking
the plaintiffs negro slave from the posses
sion Of the agent of the plaintiff in the
Stota of rhoro ba lal