Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-06-18


be resorted to, to escape some absurd consoquen-
ess, or guard against some fatal evil, g., &.
lie insisted that the meaning of the clause, mo
person hell to service OF labor, &C., under which
the power to legislate was claimed for Congress,
was neither uncertain or doubtful and that the
maxim" m is not adorable to interprcl trhat has
NO need Of interpretation" ought to apply that
she clause was q naked compact, the same rs the
twc preceding clauses, which, while standing In
the Articles of Confederation, had been named
and regarded ms mere compaots. lie urged that
power to Congress being expressed in sec, l, and
SEQ. 3, Of art, 4, and not expressed in sec. 2, the
maxim expressio uniuS, &C., applied with double
force. lie Insisted that the plain and obvious
sense Of the clause wns simply a treaty stipulation,
the same as the one providing that "The citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities Of citizens of the several States" and
was never intended, and could not have been un-
d%erstood. to be n cession of power to Congress to
l~egislate. lie denied that contemporaneous histo'
~ was admissible ~inasmuch as the people adop'
ted the constitu lion not upon history, which was
no. submitted to them, but upon the letter of the
text, which was and when submitted to them.
they must be presumed to have read and under
stood it according to it's obvious meaning.
Referring, however, to contem poran 'ous histo'
ry, he showed very clearly that nothing could be
gained from that source, even if allowable TO refer
TO it, to show that it was either understood or in
tended that power should be delegated to Congress
TO legislate in relation to fugitives from service
The fugitive low of 1893 was passed for the pro-
posed object Of retaining fugitives from justice
with very little attention given to the bill Mt the
time; that the question was not considered. But
she States on the other hand, claimed and exercis-
ed the power of legislating upon the same subject;
and the States coutinued,to legislate upon tho sub
joct until the decision of the Prigg case in 1912.
lie then remarked upon Objectionable features
Of the Fugitive Law Of 1850 the commissioners
we're vested with judicial powers unconstitutional
iy. By the provisions of tho law the right of trial
by jury and due process Of law were denied in vi.
olation of express provisions of the Constitution ;
that the provisions of the Constitution guarantee
ing these rights, being contained in the amend
ments of the Constitution, they must have full
force; however, they may qualify the right OF the
claimant as a summary removal of the person ow-
ing service. lie remarked that the Fugitive Law
of 1850 provided fo- the surrender Of fusiives
from service in other cases than that mentioned in
the Constitution that while the provision of the
Constitution was only for the delivering up of flu
gitives 'held to labor in one State under the laws
thereof" the act provides for the surrender OF fu-
gitives "beld to service or labor in any State"
merely. The act was as general in its terms as
any law upon the statute book, and its provisions
were applicable as all other general laws, to every
person within the State. 1t was, therefore, not
on1u pnconstitptional in that II u enacted with
out power. and in authorizing unreasonable seiz-
ures, and in cases not provided for by the Consti-
tuition, Withholding due process Of law and deny
ing a right of trial by jury, &c., but was, in its
provisions, a fragrant subversion Of the municipal
lave OF the States for the protection Of the person
al rights Of their citizens. In determining th
constitutionality of the fugitive law under consid
GRAFTON, and upon which the conviction and ser
tence rests, the act is to be regarded as one equa
ly applicable to any free citizen OF the Stat
against whom a claim for service may be %preferre
by the provisions thereof.
lie referred to the various judicial opinions eI
pressed, some incidentally, and others directly ii
favor Of the authority of Congress to legislate up
on the subject of fugitives. The case of Prigg Y
Pennsylvania, nc Peters, $780, is the only cas-
relied upon in which the Supreme Court of tn
United States has ever attempted to offer any req
son for the claim of power in Congress on the sub
ject. The question was not then necessarily Sefor
the Court for decision their opinion expressed il
that case was, therefore. necessarily, only an o6ite
dic.um and though expressed in favor of tn
power, it was only By an acknowledged disre gar
Of the general rules of construction applicable t
the Constitution, and upon a mistaken statemen
of coptemporaneous history and this, too, whe
reference to contemporaneous history was not ad
MISSILE, even il correctly stated. The Van Zsrd
case 18th Howard, 229) was only a re afirmance c
the former opinion as is the opinion recent
pronounced 10 the case Of the United States
Booth.
lie also referred to the contrary opinion rs mair
tained and expressed by Mr.. Jefferson and M
Madison, in their resolutions of 1913. introduce
into the lie legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky,
relation to the power Of Congress to pass Gan q
concerning aliens." lie also referred to the OPT
ions of Chancellor Walworth. Chief Justice Hor
blower, Judge Baldwin, and Mr.. Webster. mai
tanning that Cong ess had no power to pass a fui
tive law, insisting that the power belonged, und
the constitution, to the States alone to legislate u
on the subject.
Speaking Of the previous decisions Of the 8
preme Court upon the subject, and the relations
the State Judiciary to the Federal. he insisted th
the State and Federal Judiciaries were each, /
the Constitution, left independent, and ought
act with perfect independence that it was n
only the right but the duty Of tho Supreme Cou
of the State-in a case clearly Of importance
the State or its citizens, sufficient to justify such
course, and under circumstance which would di
tate such exercise Of their discretion-not to ST
fer a question to be settled. as to any case comir
before them, against their clear convictions of Il
constitutional rights Of the State or it's citizens
any adj Indication made by the Federal Court
another case. This was not judicial insubordir
ton, but thu judicial Independence contemplat
by the Constitution Of the United States, al
which he believed il the duty of the Suprer