The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-03-08

can refer to no other authority for their enforce
ment, because no other authority is spoken Of
Il is an affair between two States. The fugitive
| is to be delivered up. To be delivered up, he
| must be seized-he must be in the possession of
| those who deliver him up. No authority within
| a State can seize a criminal against the laws of
| another but the authority of the State itself to
which he has fed This is the law of nations,
and is acknowledged by the act Of 1893, with
respect TO fugitive criminals, but is denied with
respect TO fugitive slave. In the former case the
State authorities are to seize and deliver up the
| fugitive criminal; but in the latter, according TO
| this act, State authorities have nothing to do
with the fugitive slaves. In tho former case, the
Constitution is only treaty stipulation between
sovereign States in the latter, it is a matter OF
| Congressional Legislative, although Congress is
not referred TO in either case in the Constitution
Is there any ground, in reason, for this difference
| of construction?
"Let us apply the acknowledged rules of con-
struction have laid down, for ascertaning the
meaning ofthe Constitution 1t will moi he claimed
| that Congress possesses the power to legisate on
| the subject of fugitive slaves, as necessary and
| proper to carry out any expressly granted power
1t is distinct substantive matter ITSELF and can
contribute in way to enforce any other grant Of
| power. The power if it exists at ALL must be by
| special grant, laid down in the Constitution
| Now, sir, look at the clauses in the Constitution
l have quoted Is there one word in either of the
| two clauses, referring to fugitive criminals and
fugitive slaves, comforting any power Congress
| to legisate upon these subjects? No power
whatever is given to Congress. Congress is not
even mentioned in them. What is the inevitable
inference? Why, that Congress has no such
power.
| {" This view of the Constitution is confirmed, if
we look into the sections Immediately preceding
and succeeding the section relating to fugitive
| criminals and fugitive slaves. In both Of these
sections Congress is given power to act. The first
section provides Full faith and credit shall be
given, in each State, to the public acts, records,
and judicial proceedings of erery other STATE, and
the Congress may, by general law, prescribe the
| manner in which such acts, records, and proceed
ings shall be proved, and the effect thereof And
| in the third section it is provided that the Con-
gress shall have power to dispose of and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the
Territory other property belonging to the United
States
Here, then, is this remarkable state of things.
Three sections follow each other in the fourth
article Of the Constitution. The first and the
third give to Congress the power to legislate.
The second, lying between them, gives Congress
no power to legislate What must be the inevi-
| table inference Why that it is the plain mean
ing of the Constitution that Congress should not
have the power to legislate with respect to fugi-
tive criminals and fugitive slaves. To infer that
! such power exists under such circumstances, is
not only to claim power without a special grant
in the Constitution, but to seize it, although vir-
tually negatiyed by the special grants.
'And, sir, it is not difficult to perceive why
| the Constitution withheld all power from Con-
| gress to legisate on the subject of fugitive
| criminals and fugitive slaves, and has left this
whole matter to the States for enforcement.
| The trainers of the Constitution knew very we'll
| that it was very delicate matter for citizens,
| without State, to attempt to seize any persons
| within it. Shareholders knew that there was
but ono way by which their fugitive slaves could
| be efectually recovered to them, when entering
| another State, and that State Il free State. The
| power, the police, the judiciary of the States,
must be engaged. The faith and duty of the
| States must be implicated. Every man in tho
free States must be bound, a party to tho con-
| stitutional compact, TO deliver up to him his
slave, on his claim. This is the great ef1i-
| cent remedy provided in the Constitution for the
| recovery of fugitive slaves and the claim being
| made, it rested with the State, or the State au-
| thorties, to do one of two things deliver up
the slave, or pay for him."
| Sir, the Senator from South Carolina spoke in
| a spirit worthy of South Carolina A slave
holder and defender of Slavery, he would nei-
ther conceal his real opinion nor ask for any adj
vantage for his section his class at the ex-
| pense of violated Constitution. Would that
like spirit had controlled other Senators who have
represented State Rights constituents and profess
| State Rights doctrines. Then we should have
had no Fugitive Slave Act. Then this bill would
| never have been conceived.
| The Fugitive Slave Act was a gross impeach-
| ment of the honor of the Legislatures and the
good faith Of the people of the States. This
| bill is founded the same distrust and suspi-
cion of State legislation and the same desire to
control it by Federal authority.
| In, a.
the slave States, from the enactment Of tho Fu-
gtive Slave Bill, that you think it wise to risk
| this new experiment upon the Constitution Of
tho country and the patience Of the people Is
| every suit against every man who claims to have
acted under color Of n law Of the United States
| to be withdrawn from the State tribunal and
| transferred to the Federal Such is the Ian
| guage of the bill. Such seems the intent Of its
powers. But | trust they will not go quite so
far. There is scope and verge enough for your
experiment, without usurping the criminal jurs-
| dcton of the States. Restrict, at least your
| bill to civil suits. Do not undertake to arrest
| the sovereignty of the State, when employed in
it's highest duty OF investigating and furnishing
wrongs done to life or property within its juris
| dicton.
! The bill will be bad enough when limited as
| now suggest. Even then it will leave every civil
suit subject to removal-every civil suit against
any person acting under color of law " against
every person, officer not; against the slave
| catcher, or the agent of the slave-catcher. Is
not this enough? Is it prudent or profitable to
| go further? Would it not be wise to restrict the
bill yet further? Why not strike out the words
| " under color Of lar" and confne the operation
of the bill % clear Of action under statute
of the United States? Why extend the act to all
persons claiming to have acted under Federal
law q? Why not confne it to offers and persons
acting in aid Of officers
For siIty-six years; the act Of 1889 has been
upon the statute-book. During ali that time, no
body has dreamed of such law as this bill en-
bodies. 1t is the monstrous birth of bad time.
Sir, the clearest and widest separation possible,
under the Constitution, of the sphere Of the Ma
tOnsl from that Of the State Judiciary, is the true
means of peace and harmony. But this bill
presses the very wantonness Of contempt for this
principle. 1t is framed as il its express design
was to bring on desperate conflict between the
courts Of the States and those Of the United
States
Why, sir, who is to decide whether a suit is
brought against defendant for an act done I'M
der a law of the United States, under color of
it? Who is to decided And what if a defend
ant shall claim a removal, and the State court
shall refuse to grant it? What then? Will you
submit or will you resort to another act of Con-
gress for the subjugation of the State court, and
for the secure establishment of Federal despot-
ism2
Sir, the end of this road is ruin. But must
close interviewed, at first, with reluctance; but
no other Senator seemed inclined TO do so, and
felt that such bill as this ought not to be taken
up without objection, and passed without debate
Oppressed by severe cold, hardly able to speak
at all, and taken entirely by surprise, have yet
felt constrained to what little capacity of ut
| terance have in stating the genc{al objection.
to this BILL / am very sorry that cannot state
them more clearly, or speak more at large Hav-
irarrr cd d,It,r L