St. Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (St. Charles City [Charles City], Iowa) 1857-1861, 1859-06-16

, any grant of legislative power to Con
gress? think not. But the framers
of the Constitution thought that Con
, gress ought to have the power "tc
prescribe the manner in which such
acts, records and proceedings should
be proved, and the effect thereof =
and hence they gave the power in ex
press terms. When they intended &
. grant OF power to Congress. and not G
mere contract stipulation by, or in
: Junction of duty upon the States, the,
sag SO, and leave us no room for cavi
on the subject. But let us go OH
Sec. 2. THE citizens of each Stat,
shall be entitled to all privileges anc
immuuities of citizens in the several
States.
"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 de.
mand of the Executive authority of the
State from which he fled, be delivered
up. to be removed to the State having
jurisdiction of the crime"
That these clauses of section two
are mere articles of compact between
the States, dependent on the good faith
OF the States alone for their fulfillmept.
suppose no one will dispute. They
do notconfer upon Congress any power
whatsoever to enforce their observ-
ance.
Then follows the last clause of sec.
ton two, in respect to fu,itives from
labor or service, first quoted. And
this, like all the other preceding claus
es OF the article, except the first, is
destitute of any grant of power, or
even allusion to Congress or the Fed.
eral Government. Now, if grant of
power to Congress was here intended,
why this silence? If the trainers of
the Constitution intended a grant of
power to Congress in this clause, why
did they not say SO, as they did say
IN the first section, in regard to pub
lie acts, records, and judicial proceed
ings ?"
1t seems to me that no rational an
swcr can be given to this question, ex.
cept by denial of such intentions.
EzpreSsto unius erclusio olterius, is
legal maxim as old as the common
law. The express mention of one
thing implies the exclusion of things
not mentioned. 1t is the dictate of
reason and common sense. 1t is a
maxim which applies alike in the in
depreciation of contracts, statutes and
constitutions. Its application was
never more obviously proper than to
the question before us and when ap-
pied, 1t seems to me to bring with it
force little short of mathematical de-
monstration.
Thus far, have reasoned as if we
were ignorant of the history Of the
constitution. But glance at that
history confirms the conclusion to
which we are brought by the ordinary
rules OF Interpretation, and makes "as-
surances doubly sure"
The Articles of Confederation, un-
der which the struggle for independ-
ence was carried through, and for
which the present Constitutions Of the
| United States Is a substitute, con-
tanned nothing but articles of compact.
The fuIiilmcnt of its obligations was
dependent upon the faith of the States
alone. The Congress could make re-
qusltIons, but had no power to en-
force them.
AGAIN: certain provisions of the
Ordinance OF 1857, for the government
oi the territory northwest of the Ohio
river, We're, III express terms, declared
to be articles of compact"
Now, every one OF the clauses of
the fourth article Of the Constitution
above quoted were borrowed and trans
ierred, with but slight verbal altera,
tibns, from the articles of confedera-
tion and the ordinance of lTS7-the
first three from the former, and the
last from the latter-with this cxcep-
ton only, that to the first of these
clauses was added grant of power
to Congress to prescribe the manner
OF proof and effect of public acts, rec
ords, aud judicial proceedings. Here,
then, we have certain articles Of COM
pact-admitted or declared to be such,
and nothing more--borrowed and
transferred from one instrument to
another. with no intimation of any
change in their character as articles
of compact, except in a single in
stance, where the change is expressly
declared. The inference seems to me
to be irresistible, that, except so far
as the change is expressly declared,
they remained after the transfer, the
same as they were betore-articles of
| compact, and nothing else.
| conclude, therefore, that the states
are bound, in fuliilment Of their
plighted faith, and through the medi-
um of their laws, Legislation and func-
tionaries, to deliver up the fugitive
from service or labor, on claim Of the
party to whom such service or labor
may be due under the laws Of anoth
er state, from which the fugitive has
fed But the federal government has
nothing to do with the subject, and
it's interference is sheer usurpation Of
a power not granted, but reserved.
But it is said the question is settled
| Il i
deny that it is settled. The federal
Legislature has usurped power not
granted by the Constitution, and fed.
eral Judiciary has, through the medi-
um of reasonings lame, halting, con-
l.tradictory, and Of far-fetched implica-
Hons, derived from unwarranted as
sumptions Of false history, sanctioned
the usurpation. l deny that the de-
cisions of usurping party in favor Of
the validity of its own assumptions
can settle anything 1t is true that
the courts and Legislatures Of several
of the States have decided in the same
way but they have been decisions of
acquiescence rather than of original
and independent inquiry. The fact
that such jurists as Hornblower, Wal
worth and Webster thought on this
subject as | think, shows that the
question is not settled. The fact that
| n maiority of nv brethren. as | nm.