New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-11-24

bis opinion given in the New-1o Cour' oil Erto's
in the case Of Jack VI. Martin. "a Wendell 5O')
Even Mr.. Webster, in his famous 9TH OF Aarch
speech, emphstically declared himself to entertain
the same view. 81 have always thought, be
sa;d :. that the Constitution addressed itsef to
.. III. Legislatures Of the States to the states
themselves. 1t says that thoee persons escaping
10 other States shall be delivered up and Icon
fess have always been Of the opinion that II was
"sn INJUNCTION upon the States themselves. "here
il is ssd that Pc rsOn escaping into another STATE
"snd coming therefore within the jurisdiction oil
that State. should be delivered up, it seems TO me
the import Of the clause is that the State 'se' IN
obedience to the Constitution, should cause him 10
be delivered up. That is my Judgment l have
always entertained that opinion and entertain II
now. But when the case Was, some years ago.
"before the Supreme Court, the majority oil the
Judges held I in PIgg vs.. Pennsylvania that the
"power to cause fugitives to be delivered up was a
power to be exercised under the authority OF this
ali. e. the Federal1 Government
As to the acquiescence Of tho States In the act
Of 1898, two things are to be observed That act,
though usurpation 90 the part Of Congress, did
not undertake to deprive the States of their
constitutional right in The matter, but only 10
direct in what manner that right should be e1-
ercised. 1t still left the business Of the sur
render Of fugitives to State officers, going
no further than to give mere concurrent
jurisdiction 10 the United States Judges to which,
perhaps, they were entitled under that clause OF
the Constitution giving Jurisdiction to the Federal
Courts in cases where one Of the suitOrs was the
citizen # another State. There is not the slightest
evidence that the Congress which passed that act
ever imagined that it would be or could be inter
preted to Gust the superior State Courts OF their
right to revise the proceedings under il the part
of Justices Of the Peace. The extravagant idea
that certificate granted under that act by JUS
tice Of the Peace was absolutely final aud con-
elusive AS to the rights of both psrties-tbe claim
ant and the csimed-was first started in 1919 by
the Supreme Court OF Pennsy in the case OF
Hrieht '. Deacon q Sergeant and Rawle 62), and
from the moment of the adoption of that decision
IN other States, the people at once began to
grow FESTIVE under the act Of 1898, which, thus in-
terpreted, became gross invasion Of State rights.
Under this feeling, ssny Of them eagerly availed
themselves of some points in the case Of Prog vs.
Pennsylvania, TO forbid their officers from hav-
ing anything to do with carrying out so obnoxious
law, or their jals from being used as means to.
ward its execution. Since the passage Of the act
of 1850 which added ncw eutragcs to the original
usurpaton, this feeling has, naturally enough,
grown stronger, and several States have eyinced
disposition, more or less decided to reclaim their
control over this important subject.
In this spirit an act has passed the Senate Of Yer
mont, and 10 now pending in the lower House, the
substantial provisions of which are a. follows,
The fr.. section Of the bl provides th.s whsneveS n
under the laws h-reof has ESCAPED ito tins State Yer
the s. Of n tn T p.y So 2. or .
alleged to be due shall be in the manner and not 9TH
III The claimant sa file with one Of tie JUDGES f.he Sd
rrct c. acsv; sess forth the e;s upon which such
40 such carsart shall with such Judge GOOD AID
sucien, 20 The whose services claimed not
h % ss and IN sessat ,se1.oi ssa pay 20 the Other
party al costs os damages trouble AID expense ocessonsd by
Srch Judge upon compliance with the shove
vce. are 50 csed before the CoaE;y
Coar, be hoc,n where the procce ding are inr ted
affidavit ei,ter patty may have iral By Jury dsierd.n na
have tie bn fit Of 20 any runf q the toi snd II
the verde; shsl be for the defendant sIsl b ma And con-
elusive between the PARTIES -.
The eleventh on provides hs II any person shall n
arrested upon The claim or Pieien;e TAI The ps'oa q.
o ,hs set be shah punshed BY ursoaens 10 the Sat-.
Prison iA.n hye nor le than Two year, Al
be hret 10. exceeding : leO.'
Two sets of objections are made TO this bill.
/. The doughface Democrats oppose it of course,
as an interference with the constitutional rights Of
their Southern masters. 2. 1t is opposed by
some Republican Senators. on the ground that it Is
not confined exclusively TO the case of fugitive
slaves but would also extend TO the case Of fugitive
minors and apprentices.
Now, We do not see the slightest weight in this
latter objection. The real objection seems TO US 10
be 10 the frs. section. Instead Of being costned
TO the ease Of ugitves from labor escaping into the
State, the bill might. in our Judgment, extend ~
the case Of all fugitives from lsbor-,hose whose
service is claimed 10 be due by the law Of Yer
mont, as well as those whose service is claimed 10
be due under the laws Of other States. This would
place the citizens of other States precisely the
same level with the citizens OF Vermont, which is
WHIST they have constitutional RICH. TO claim, and
which is al they could reasonably asa.
There is besides, another reason. and very pow
erful one too, for an amendment OF the bln in
This particular The common law remedies in the
case of fugitive minors or apprentices, (and very
few States have any statute provisions on the sub
ject.) are very inadequate. Those remedes are
two viz: I. The parent, master or gusrdisn-and
this same right has been held in Massachusetts, and
elsewhere 10 aPper;ain to tho master of fugitive
slsve-may seize tie fugitive. on his own respond