Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1859-06-04

cords, and proceedings should be proved,
and the effect thereof !" and hence they
gave the power in express terms. When
they intended grant Of power to Congress,
and not q mere contract stipulation by, OF
injunction Of duty upor the States, they sag
so, and leave us no room for cavil on the
subject. But let us go on
SEC. 2. 1.-THE citizens of each State
shall be entitled to oil privileges and immu-
mites of citizens in the several States.
"a person charged in any State with
treason, felony, or other crime, who shall
fee from justice, and be found in another
State, shall, on demand of the executive
authority of the State from which he fed,
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 fulilment, l suppose
no one will dispute They do not confer
upon Congress any power, whatsoever, to
enforce their observance.
Then fellows the last clause of section
two, in respect to fugtives from labor or
service, first quoted. And this, like all the
other preceding clauses of this article, ex-
cept the first, is destitute of any grant of
power, or even alluson to Congress or the
federal government. Now, if grant Of
power to Congress was here intended why
| this silence If the trainers Of the Con
stitution intended grant of power to Con
gress in this clause, why did they not say
so, as they did say in the first section, in
respect to public acts, records, and judi
cia proceedings Z"
1t seems to me that no rational answer
can be given to this question, except by
denial of such intentions E1pressiO uniUs
erclusto GLerius, is a 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 o maxim which
applies alike in the Interpretation Of con-
tracts, statutes, and constitutions. Its ap.
plication was never more obviously proper
than to the question before us and when
applied, it seems to me to bring with it q
force little short of mathematical demon
stration.
Thus far have reasoned as if we were
ignorant of the history of the constitution.
But glance at that history confirms the
conclusions to which we are brought by the
ordinary rules of interpretion, and makes
assurances doubly sure"
The Articles of Confederation, under
which the struggle for independence was car
ried through and for which the present
Constitution of the United States is q sub
sttute contained nothing but articles of
compact. The fulilment of its obligations
was dependent upon the faith of the States
alone. The Congress could make requisi-
tions, but had no power to enforce them.
Again : Certain provisions of the Or
dnance of 1887, for the government of the
territory north of the Ohio river, were, iD
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 transferred, with
hut slight verbal alterations, from the arti-
cles of confederation and the ordinance of
l787-the first three from the former, and
the last from the latter-with this eXcep-
ton only, that to the first of these clauses
was added a grant Of power to Congress
to prescribe the manner of proof and effect
of public acts, records, and judicial pro-
ceedings. Here, then, we have certain ar
ticleS of mpact-admitted or declared to
be such, and nothing more-borrowed and
transferred from one instrument to another
with no intimaton of any change of their
character as articles of compact, except in
single instance, where the change is ex-
pressly declared. The inference seems to
me to be irresistible, that, except so far as
the change is expressly declared, they re-
mained after the transfer, the same as they
were before-articleS of compact, and moth
ing else.
conclude, therefore, that the States are
bound, in fulfllment of their plghted faith,
and through the medium of their laws, leg
islation and functionaries 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 another State
from which the fugitive has fed. But the
federal government has nothing to do with
the subject and its interference is sheer
usurpation of power not granted, but re-
served.
But, it is said, the question is settled,
and our argument comes too late. l deny
that it is settled.
The federal legislature has usurped
power not granted by the Constitution, and
federal judiciary has, through the medium
Of reaSonings lame, halting, contradictory,
and Of far-fetched implications, derived from
unwarranted assumptions and false history,
Sanctioned the usurpation | deny that the
decisions of uSurping party in favor of
the validity of its own assumptions, can
settle any thing. 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,
Walworth and Webster, thought on this
subject as l think, shows that the question
is not settled. The fact that a majority of
my brethren, as l understand them, admit
that if this were a new question they would
be with me, and that they yield the strong
leanings of their own minds to the force of
the rule of res adjUdicata alone, proves that
this question is not settled The truth is,
it is not until recently that the mass of in
tellippnt and inuuirinor mind in this country