Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1854-06-26
For the Grant County Her aid.

For the Grant County Herald.
Mr.. Editor: The opinion Of the Hon.
A.. d. Smith, of the Supreme Court Of
our; State. .pro,m4nci.ig- the Fugitive
slave Law Of, 1850 ihconstit,ttionsl, is
given at length in: the; Free. Democrat of
The. l4th.insi. Every man. has AN, in.
|stinciive feeling that this act is viola
ton Of the Constitution Of the United
] States but how it violates the funda-
mental principles Of the great compact
he perhaps may not be able to explain.
He may perhaps hot be able to explain,
althotigh he will feel it,) the difference
between surrendering fugitive slave,
and fugitive from Justice. The opin-
ion Of Judge Smith to any Sane and un-
BIASED, ssnpejured mild amounts to a
demonstration. Hereafter the judicial
Tribunal that siistains the validity of that
law, must feason from its want of brains
or want of honesty. In either case, its
decisions will be devoid Of all moral
force.
The first position assumed BY Judge
Smith is, that Congress has no right to
legislate on the question of the delivery
of fugitive Slaves but by Art. w, Sec.
IL, of the Constitution, the whole ques-
ton has been committed to State Legis-
lation. Clause II of section II enacts,
that "a person charged in any State,
with treason, felony or other crime, who
shall flee from justice and be found in
another State, shall on demand of the ex-
ecutive authority Of the State from which
he fed, be deltDered Up to be removed to
the State having jurisdiction Of the
crime." The next clause relates to fu-
gitive sla yes "No person held to SER
vice or labor in one State under the
laws thereof, escaping into another,
shall in consequence Of any law or reg
ulation therein be discharged from such
service or labor; but shdN be delivered
up, on claim Of the party to whom such
service or labor may be DUE"
Judge Smith decides that both these
clauses are but compact depending for
their fulfilment on the honor of the
States wins are and were parties there
to. Both in fact and in law, clause II,
In reference to '.fugitives from Justice"
has always been regarded as mere
cotiipact. The United States have tev-
ct attempted I'd enact any law for the
apprehension Of horse-.hisf Or murder
ct who may fly frsm the lSeality where
the crime was committed to another
State. Every State would instinctively
see that this clause was mere compact !;
no free State can trust tbs liberty IF its
citizens to any other than its own laws
and regulations. Federal laws enacted
for the purpose of giving effect to this
second clause would be regarded as un-
con stitutional at first blush, and spurn-
ed by every State as an insufferabIe in
reference with the rights of its citizens
and dangerous TO personal liberty and
State sovereignty. The State of Virgil
MIA might reqiiFe Of The State of Wis
consih to "deIiver up'' Miss Douglass, a
fugitive from Virginia vengsancs, char
ged with the capital offgnse of teaching
slaves out of the spelling book. Could
Congress pass law enabling the catch.
pole Judges Of the United States Courts
and their creatures, to seize and carry
off woman from Wisconsin for doing
what we call a praise orthy act? The
States could not have yielded-they have
not yielded such right to Congress, in
reference to persons charged with crime.
Now the next clause in reference to fu-
gl''ves from labor, employs the same lan-
uags, and every rule of Interpretation,
that the clauses follow each other; that
they relate TO similar subjects eyerv
consideration in reference to State ROW:
ereignty, the duty Of Sect, ing to every
citizen his natural rights, reSnires that
we give this language a like intelpreta.
ton. The second clause says the fugi-
tive from justice shall be "delivereed
up to the State whence he fled the
third clause says the fugitive from labor
"shall be delivered up" on claim of the
party to whom the service is due. Now.
the question is, who is to make the de-
livery i'll either case ? The words i'm.
posing the duty are Identical in boil, ca
ses. The poaOer on whom the duty is
imposed, is clearly the same. In truth.
1t IS the sovereign State to whose terri
tory the fugitlvs from justice or labor
has escaped that must make the delive-
~. 1t is an agreement in both cases a.
mong sovereign States, too deeply affec-
ting the liberty of their respective citi-
zens to allow any extraneous pow
er to inteffefe lii the matter, or assume
to perform the duty for them. Such has
always been the interpretatlonof the Sc
cend clause; the duty Of delivering up
ingltlves from justice has been berf6rm-
ed by the several States. Congress has
not power, and has never pretended to
perform these compact duties Of the
states to each other in reference to fu.
gitives from justice and tke careful j.
IDENTITY Of Languages, the proximity of the
clatises, the similarity in subject. mat
ter, the reasons on which the dutv in
both Clauses are founded, are conclusive
to show that the nation has illegally done
Tor the apprehension of runaway slave.
what 1t never would have done. nor
nave been allowed to do for the appre.
hension Of criminal.
The Judge also decides that the fuei-