Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1859-06-17

| " No person held to service or labor in one
State under. the laws thereof, escaping into an
other, shall, in consequence of any law or reg
ulation therein, be discharged from such ser
vice or labor. but shall be delivered up on claim
may be due" Art. 4. Sec: 2
This Ii the only clause of The Constitution
from which anybody pretends to divine, or in
which anybody preteildsste to find grant of pow
er to Congress to legislate on the subject of the
rendition of iugitives from labor. Lean find in
it no such grant The first part of it simply
prohibits State legislation hostile to the rendi-
ton of fugitivesa from labor. Such fugitive
shall not be discharged sin consequence of any
law or regulatioh of the State into which he
shall escape; hut shall be delivered up By
awhon?) BY Congress? BY the Federal au-
thorities? There are 1aossueh acoTds, and no
such idea is hinted5at. This is evident from an
inspection Of the whole of the preceding por-
tion of this article. sSssF
s Art. 4, Sec. l. " Full faith and credit shall
be given in each State to the public acts rec
ords, and judicial proceedings of every other
State 4d1'd the Congress may by general taacs
prescribe the ,otich such acts records
and proceedings shall be proved, ard the effect
thereof" Here, in the first place, isa compact
between the States respectively ey-an agreement
of the several States to and with each other,
and the public acts, records and judicial pro-
ceedings of each shall !" have full faith and
credit y given to them in all. Had this sec
ton. closed here would any one claim that it
embraced any grant of legislative power to
Congress L think not. But the trainers of
the Constitution Thought that Congress ought
to have the power " to prescribe the manner in
which such acts, records and proceedings
should be proved, and the effect thereof" and
hence they gave the power in express terms
When they intended grant a grant of power
to Congress, and not a mere contract stipula-
ton by; or injunction of duty upon the States,
theysay so, and leave us no room for eaxil on
the subject. But let US go on
Sec..2. The citizens of each State shall
be entitled to all privileges and immunities Of
citizens'in in the several States. saz .
"A person charged in any State with trea-
son, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from
justice, an5 be found in another State, shall, on
demand of the executive authority of the State
from which he fed, be delivered up, to be re-
movedst to the StatesIaFiiag jurisdiction of the
scrime's3 az ,asC58 -s}f2 =a6J ~
That these clauses of section two are mere
articles of compact between the States, depen-
dent alone for then fulfiifnent, suppose no one
| will dispute They de not confer upon Con
grcss any power whatsoever to enforce their OBJ
servance. -zs.f-e
Then follows the last clause OF section two
in respect to fugitives from labor or service
frstqueted. And this, like all the other pre-
eeding clauses Of this article, exceptthe first
| is destitute Of any grant Of power, or even al
| lusion to Congress or the federal government
Now if grant cf power to Congress wai
here intended, why this silente? If the fra
mers of the Constitution intended grant o
power,to Congress in this clause, why did they
not eay,so, as they did say in, the first section
in respect to public acts, records, and iudicia
proceedings ?" ...rz .s,-s -s.--zs -
1t seems to me that no rational answer car
be given to this question: except by a denial o
such intentions. E.rpreSsio anus ercltsio al
teriuS, is legal maxim as old as the common
law. The express mention of one thing i'm
plies the exclusion of things not nientiohed,-
1t is the dictate of reason and common sense
1t is q maxim which applies alike in the inter
pretation of contracts statutes, and constitu
tutions, 1ts application WIS never more obvi
ously proper than to the question before us
and when applied, it seems to me to bring witt
it a. force little short of mathematical demon
Istratiop. ..-.. -s--
Thus far, I have reasoned as if we were ig
norant of the history of the constitution. Bu
a glance at the history confirms the conclusion
to which we are Brought by the ordinary rule
of Interpretation, and makes assurances dout
ly sure
The articles of Confederation, under whic
the struggle for independence was carrie
through, and for which the present Constitr
ton of the United States is substitute, coI
tanned nothing bit articles of compact TIL
fuiiiIinlcnt of its obligations was dependent vi
+ on the faith Of the States alone. The Congre
could make requisitions hut had no power
eufOrcc them.
Again Certain provisions of the Ortlinano
of 1851, for the government OF tic tefritol
northwest Of tina Ohio river; wctc, in expre
{ terms, declared to be articles of compact"
Now every one of the clauses of the fourt
article of the Constitution above Quoted WEI
+ borrowed and transferred, with but slight We
f bal alterations, from the articles of confederi
. ton and the ordinance of 1797-thc first thrt
q from the former, and the last from the latter
: with this exception ory, that to the first
these clauses was added a grant of power
+ Congress to prescribe the manner of proof al
o effect cf public acts, records and judicial pr
4 ccedings. Here, then we have certain articl
. of compact-admitted or declared to be sue
h and nothing more-horrowed and tranSfcrr
n from one instrument to another, with no. in
# nation of any change of their character as {
al ticles of compact, except in a single instant
where the change is expressly declared. I
O. inference seems to me to be irresistible, th
n. except SO far as the change is exprcs ly decl'
,n ed, they remained after the transfer, the sal
as they We're before-articles of compact a
ne nothing elsei
! conclude, therefore, that the States
Is. bound, in ft,lfllment of theirplighted faith a
IS through the midium of their laws, lecislati
ed and ftnctionaries to deliver up the fugitive FRI
he service or labor, on claim Of the party to VIII
es such service or labor NAV be due under
nd laws of another State from which the fngit
TO has fed But the federal government has no
re- ing to do with the subject and its sheer usti
be alton Of power not granted, but reserve |.
But, is is said, the question is settled, :
re our argument comes too late. I deny that
lty is settled
i'm The federal legislature has usurpcd ro'
-he not granted by the Constitution, and fedt
the judiciary has through the medium ofreasoni
sh- lame, halting, contradictory. and of far-fetc
re- implications, derived from unwarranted assuI
re tions and false history, sanctioned the usurP
deny that the decisions Of a usurpinc part
ed, favor of the validity of its own assumptions,
ted settle any thing. 1t is true that the courts
lat legislatures of several of the States have de
der ed in the same way +; but they have been
To- - A., -. A.. o-s-r