Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-11-25

right OF trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by Il jury shall be otherwise rock
amined in any Court of the United States than
according to the rules of the common law"
But it is sometimes assumed that the word
= person in this fugitive clause, was intended
to include Slaves 10 this there are two con-
elusive answers. The first is, if it was intended
to include slaves, then the word - slave" would
have been used 1t was as easy to use that
word as any other. The trainers of the Con-
stitation, with full knowledge of the differ
ence between the two classes, /" persons and
I" slaves, and the Southern members kn0,ciag
that slaves were not persons, nor 50 r..
garded by their laws all consented to use the
word person" in the Constitution as clearly
expressing the meaning of its trainers. The
other answer is, that the history of the adoption
OF this clause proves the meaning attached to
tho word used by the Convention A PROPOSE
ton was first distinctly Submitted to the Con-
vention to reclaim fugitive siarCs. 1t received
no support. No one rose = to do it reverence
or defend it, and it was abandoned and secuted
as proposal g not fit to be made The very
next day the clause, as it n0U is" persons held
to service, was proposed and unanimously
adopted The word " slave was thus distinct
ly ignored and excluded, and the word " per
son as distinctly approved and retained.
But the clause before referred to, in the
fourth article, includes no person, but those
held to service 80 under the ldpS thereof mean
ing the laws of the State from which the fugi-
tive has escaped On this point, Senator Ma
son, of Virginia, declared " that no proof could
be brought forwardthat slavery is established in
the slave States by existing laws-that no such
ido could be produccd." General Stringfellow.
of Missouri, Messrs. S. G. Brooks and Mcqueen
Of South Carolina, Smith Of Virginia, and Tho
mas l.. Clingman of North Carolina, have fully
endorsed the above. If slave, therefore, is
not held to service g under the laws thereof,
and is not a person, " no claim for his surron-
der can be sustained under this clause And,
moreover, like all laws and Constitutions, whore
the attempt is made to deprive a person Of his
liberty or life. it is to be construed strictly in
favor Of The prisoner--in favor of freedom.
The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 is, there
fore in the opinion Of your Committee, uncon-
stitutional and void. not only because slaves
are, by its provisions, 6 delivered up" but be-
cause it deprves persons - of liberty and
property . without due process of law" 1t
denies the right of trial by Court. The
g claim is made, not before Court of JUS
tice, but before Commissioner, who is bound
by no rules of law or evidence, and is IRE
sponsibc except to the slave power who created
him.
But this act should be declared imperative
and void, in the judgment Of your Committee,
for another reason Congress is not authorized
by the Constitution to enforce it. No power is
granted to Congress for that purpose. The
language of the fugitive clause in the Constitu-
ton, before quoted, isl shall be delivered up"
bat it confers no authority and imposes no
duty on Congress to deliver up. Who, then,
is clothed with authority, and on whom is this
duty imposed? The answer to this inquiry
is found in the tenth article of amendments to
the Constition, in these words
The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respect
lively, or to the people,
No power is delegated to the United States,
or to Congress by the Constitution, to - doliv-
er up " " persons held to service nor is the
power prohibited by it to the States. The ques-
ton then is placed beyond doubt, and the infer
ence is irresistible, that, by the tenth article,
this power " to deliver up y is RESERVED TO
THE STATES RESPECTIVELY OR TO THE PEOPLE"
And it is mmaterial, so far as the question
of power concerned, whether the States do or do
not 80 deliver up" persons held to service OF
labor. That is a question addressed to then
sound discretion and it is for each State to de-
termine its duty IN thematter. Ii is enough to
: say that the Constitution, in explicit terms
leaves the power, the duty and the discretion
with the States, or the people, and Nth them
$ only
But it may be said that the Supreme Cour
G has decided that Congress, under this clause o
t the Constitution, has the power to legslate OF
this subject and compel the return of fugitive
slaves, and that the act OF 1850 is constitution
c al Now il Congress, by that act, had CLOTHED
e these irresponsible commissioners with powe
to remand the man to the gallows to be hung
instead of to slavery for life, "a lesser evil .
q the two,) and the Supreme Court, in some 9th
: or Prigg or bred Scott decision, had justifieC
the sentence of the commissioner, and decide,
: that Congress lad the power thus to lcgislate
: we should be precisely as much bound by tina
G decision us by either of the decisions above re
ierred to. But it cannot be true that we ar
:. concluded by either. Tho States of this Union
e and more especially legislators who have takel
y an oath to support this Constitution, must sup
: port it as they understand Its plain and obviou
r import. No party Presidents or Judges, n,
party politicians or legislators, have the RICH
= to interfere between us and our oath and caus
: us, as the Court has done in the case of Dret
IL Scott, to tritter away the plain declarations, tn
d fundamental principles, and all guarantees o
c human rights contained in that instrument
i We are sworn to support and defend, not to an
= null destroy, the Consttution-aud wheneve
0 called upon to act we must be true to that OBJ
IS legation.
: But your Committee are now to consider tina
u part of the Supreme Court. not extra
Is judicial in its character while the Court by til
e record, had the right to decide. However fla
is grant and unjustifable may have been til
It extra-judicial opinions of the Court, before re
ferred to, in relation to slavery and the Terri
d tories, yet this judicial decision in relation t
IS citizenship is the most heartless and heardenc
act of despotism ever attempted by any Cour
10 in Christendom. 1t upsets, overturns and dc
% mollshes the settled principles of all Laws an
" Constitutions as well in America as in the CT
r lighened nations of Europe And yet we fin
If this decision endorsed by the President, by til
Ne State Department, and by the Cabinet mini
ters.
to By this decision of the Supreme Court of tn
re United Statos, citizens OF Vermont, and of ii
in Free States, have no right, while in anotht
State, to defend or protect their lives, their lii
he critics or their property, whenever or wherev,
er those rights are invaded. They have no rigl
I, to sue the citizens of another State il defence
IN those rights They cannot be made party
any such suit. They are declared omlaloS b
is their own government, with no rights which tt
re President, Congress, or the Supreme Court al
ID bound to respect. They are declared not to
$ citizens of the United States, and why the
a. should the Union of the States be of value t
- them?
pr Your Committee cannot contemplate, withol
bh foreboding and alarm. the condition in whc
I'd the citizens of this and of the other Free Stat
VS. are placed, by the decision of this Court. CT