New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-03-09

of the Cor stituti0Dai CONVENTION. Wu0 ougut 70
have known what the Cons itutiou intended Bat
II may be replied that the act OF 1873, although
its passage was an assumption OF Jurisdiction In
the m.ttsr unwarranted, a. We think, BY the
Constitution yet did not, in fact, operate, and
wa, not intended to operate, TO take away the
Jurisdiction of the States in that matter, but only
TO direct how that jurisdiction should be exer-
ci,ed. the execution of the act being still mainly
left with the State officers. In those early times
the ide. Of two Governments wholly stinct,
and operating independently, had NOT yet been
hplly crashed This was one OF Dumerou, cases
in which Congress, in those early times, (unwar-
,,ptsbly. as the Supreme Court Of the United
States bias ,iDce decio ed b. undertook to give on
d.rs TO State officers: is there in this act the
sliebtest hint OF that exclusive assumption Of ju-
ri,diotiop in the matter, frat asserted for the
United States so late as 1912, 10 the Prgg case,
and of " hch not the slightest hint is TO be fouod
in spy case before that Of Wrtghi Y. Deacon de-
ci6ed in Pennsylvania in lsl9
We are most clearly Of opinion that the sur
render Of fueitives from labor belongs. u,der the
Constitution of the United States, exclusively to
the States; and il is because We are of this opia-
ion that we question the expediency, aud even
the ccnstitutioDaity, Of the bill reported By Ms.
Boyutou. The obvious intent eftbe Constitution
Of the United States was TO put Virsnsns for In
stance (takiDg them as representing the citizens
If oil the other States except New-York.) on the
came level, and to ensitle them to the same means
of enforcing in New-York. or ia any other State
claim for labor or service due under the law of
Virgins, ard from which the person wing it has
fed 70 New-YOrk or elsewhere, that New York
man Into enforce in New York claim to labor
and service arising under the laws of NewYork
Surely if the enforcement Of Virginia claim is
placed on the same level in New-York IS tho en-
forceneDt Of New-York claim, Virginia can ask
no more; and, On the other hand, she may Justly
say that, under the Federal Constitution, she is
entitled to 10 less.
Now the laws of New-York give to fathers,
guardians and masters the custody Of the persons
and interest in the services Cat least in tie frat
aid last cases. Of their minor children, wards,
and apprentices. Whatever legal means the law
n,itles New-York father, guardian or master
to employ to recover the custody of his runaway
child, ward or apprentice, those anelegal means,
exactly and none other, the Virginia master has
right to employ ia New York to recover the
custody of the runaway who owes him service or
labor under the laws of Virgins, Every
lawyer knows what these legal means are.
The New.York runaway from Q citizen OF
n, al H. Va la "a tha
custody of his person. may be seized BY tle
person entitled to such custody. without any le
gal process, if it can be done without breach of
the peace, but in that case the alleged runaway
or others acting in his behalf may cause the
right of the claimant to be legally Investigated
on a babeas corpus or bya writ of personal re-
pevin. If the person claimed cannot be taken
without breach Of the peace, then the claim
ant must sue out writ of habeas corpus to the
intent that if he is found entitled, the Court
may order delivery of the person claimed into
his hands. These methods Of procedure applica
bic to cares arising under the laws of New York,
ale exactly applicable to cases arising under the
We can see no reason for prescribing different
methods in the twO cases, and we even doubt the
cOnstitutionslity of it.
If it should be thought that the right of recap
ture, without warrant, is liable to abuse, and
ought TO be restricted or taken awsy altogether,
then it seems to US that it ought to be taken
away in oil cases alike, in New-York cases as
well as in Virginia cases, and BY general act
not restricted to the case Of fastives from other
states, but equally applicable to all fusitives.
The view here advocated appears to Ne to have
many things to recommend it. 1t does away with
the necessity of any legislation whatever State or
National, on the subject Of iugtives from service,
leaving their rendition to be regulated BY the
Constitution of the United States and the stand
ing and ordinary municipal laws Of the States,
thus leaving entirely undisturbed, so far as the
necessity of any special lesis0ive action or dis
cussion is concerned al unfortunate clause of the
Federal Constitution, of which it may truly be
said, that the more it lie stirred the more ofen-
sive il becomes