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

e tion of the United States, whether th
: acts of 1898 and 1850, commonl
called the fugitive slave laws, are ul
7 constitutional or not.
a Ill. That the question in this case
is not whether the fugitive slave &C
, of 1850 is unconstitutional in respcc
to the appointment and powers Q
commissioners, the allowance of wri
Of habeas corpus, tho mode of reclama
| tion, &c, but whether Congress ha
any power to pass any law whatever
: however just and proper in its pro
J visions, for the reclamation of slaves
or to protect the owner Of an escaped
slave from interference, when only as
sertng his constitutional rights of re
clamation.
". That Congress, from the earlies,
period of the government, has by leg
islative penalties, vindicated the con
stitutionalright of the owner Of slaves
against unlawful interference.
V. That such Legislation was adopt
ed in 1898 by the second Congress
elected under the Constitution, com.
posed of many Of the members of the
Convention who framed the Cons titu.
tlon has, from that day to this, been
in active operation, and has been &C.
quesced in by all departments of the
government, National and State and
the Legislative power of Congress on
this subject has been recognized by the
General Assembly of the State Of
Ohio in their statutes, by the Supreme
Court of the United States, and by
the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts,
New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana,
Illinois, California, by the Supreme
Court of Ohio on the circuit, and, in
deed, by the Supreme Courts of every
State in the Union where the question
has been made, and has never been
denied by the Supreme Court of any
State-the Courts of Wisconsin, not.
withstanding the popular impression,
not forming an exception.
VI. The right to rescue escaped
slaves from their owners being denied
to all citizens of the United States by
the Constitution Congress having
prohibited it and enforced the prohi-
bition by penalties; the Supreme Court
Of the United States, and Courts of
the Free States have recognized and
acquiesced in such legislative prohi-
bition and punishment, if the question
is not thus put beyond the reach Of
the private personal views of the
judges and if they possess judicial
discretion or power to overrule, Oh the
power of their individual opinions,
this unbroken current of decisions
and this acquiescence Of the States of
the Union, and change settled inter
probation Of the Constitution of the
United States then there is no limit,
and no restraint upon Judges making
at any time, and under any circum-
stances, their own individual opinions,
the arbitrary interpreters Of the Con-
st tuition.
VII. Whatever differences of opin-
ion may now exist in the public mind,
as to the power of Congress to punish
rescuers as provided in the acts of
1898 and 1850, no such vital blow is
given either to Constitutional rights
or State sovereignty by Congress, thus
euacting law to punish violation
Of the Constitution of the United States
as to demand Of this Court the orgaui-
zation of resistance. If, after more
than sixty years of acquiescence by
all departments of the National and
State governments, in the power Of
I 70 ln IL,
ment Of rescuers Of escaped slaves,
that power is to be disregarded and
all laws which may be passed by
Congress on this subject from hence
forth are to be persistently resisted
and nullified, the work of revolution
should not be begun by the conserva-
tors Of the public peace.
Judge Scott orally assented to the
foregoing, as embodying his views,
especially in its conclusions although
he intimated that he would, in a writ
ten opinion, modify some of the de-
tails.
Judge Peck delivered an elaborate
written opinion, coinciding with Judge
Swan and Scott, comprising review
of the decisions of the Courts, upon
the questions involved in the case,
and treating the whole matter as a
res adjudicata
Judge Sutliff also read dissenting
opinion, taking the ground that ac-
cording to the established rules of
construction, no authority for Congress
to pass the Fugitive Act could be
found in tie Constitution.
Judge Brinkorhotf also dissented
from the majority of the Court, in a
iorcible opinion which we give below:
JUDGE BRINKERHoFF's OPINION.
Brinkenhoff, j., said
| Since the close of the argument of
these cases-Sunday, and a visit to
my family intervening-I have not
had time To DO more than hastily
sketch brief outline of my opinion
on the questions they present. This
| give, and | may and may not, as
leisure or inclination may prompt, com,
nit them to paper, with the reasons
on which they may rest more fully
and in detail hereafter.
/. Under the advice Of the District
Attorney of the United States, the in.
dictments under which the relators
were convicted, are appended to, and
form part of the return to these
writs. The question whether they
charge crime or not, is therefore be-
fore us. Both indictments are fatally
defective, in this, to wit, that neither
Of them aver that John was held to
service or labor in the State OF Ken
lucky, under the la,os thereof" End
section, 4th article, Constitution Uni
ted States.
ii. This defect is not mere error
or irregularity. If it were, 50 far as
this point is concerned, we should be
obliged to remand the prisoners for
the writ of habeas corpus cannot be
made TO perform the functions OF a
writ of error But 2nd. This defect
is an illegality. The averment omit.