New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-30

Who phaI be delivered up Certainly, the person
who hss beer pycsd to owe service 70 eho'aeii
whether be be black or white, bond or free. AMI
who shall deliver him up The !org iron arm Of the
United States No there has been no slu-ou To the
United States Government IA the Whole CLAUSE" AM no
such power u dSlegGied, but the S'e'e a1'uo'"!
where the person is found.
The Committee say: e. The question a. to the nght
Of Congress 10 provide for carrying out this provision
Of the Constitution has been too long aequiereed H.
TO be questioned al this time. Very veA. acquIes-
ceree' in law, suppo4e means ana 70
that law Non-resistsnce. then. 10 this law Of 1881
evidence Of it, consti,Utionsly. But large par, OF
the Report IL made up Of an argument 10 prove tha'
any resistance to law II Congress IL uess2t.
What then. say they Will be the s,ti'ade Z" tnls
State tow ard the General Government but reoeihon,
and what the acts Of the state officers but treason
A law then, IL enacted By Congress, VIGOROUSLY un'
constitutional An individual cannot resist 1t, Tor ,hat
would be treason He therefore scqlesees.
The State cannot resist, for that would be rebellion
The State therefore "acquiesces. or course nobody
would be guilty n treason or " rebellion, and,
Therefore it, constutionsty cannot be tined before
the court. Hence all "acquiesce, and finally tbs
grave Committee pronounce this enforced "acquies-
cepce proof positive Of the constiiutionsity of the
law Qsod erat demOas'TaHdHm. II there be any
doctrine more servie than this u the practice Of the
despoic gov ernmeuts of Europe, beg to know whst
il is.
Bu does this rule If constitutional amendment. by
"acuueseence" apply TO all the country. or only to
such parts the Slave Interest may choose to have
Nearly forty years ago, Congress enacted Law called
"CoUpronlise one pant Of which secured all that pof-
ton Of United States Territories living north Of % 80
north TO Freedom. After it had been scquiesced N
more than thirty year., the Supreme Court declaredn
unconstitutional. Why Because ii secured Freedom
and not Slavery. And does the rule OF acquiescence
apply only where Slavery ia to be the gamer know
OF no such mode Of enargng the basis Of our constu
tons rights and restrictions. II the night OF congress
TO enact Fugitive Slave Law did not exist IN lI5, II
has no existence now and, depend upont this doctrine
o< ;tptiop al
rocks and Quickssnds which VIII shatier me enoh INTO
ATONE.
1.-THE cons.itufionay Of this act has been repeatedly
decided by the Court SO saystke Report. Ana IN
support Of the dctum they refer to four cases namely
Stewart Vs. Laird, Cranch, % Martin vs. Hunder,
let Wheaton, 304; Cohen We. Virginia, Wheaton,
264 In neither Of these cases, far as am able to
discover did the Fugitive Slave Law come into quee-
ton; nor vas there amp decision, direct incidental,
affecting that law, its consutonallty And OF TINS
am the certain, as in the later case OF Pngg vs.
Pennsyvan ia Judge Mclean says, this clause OF
"the Constitution is now for the fra tune, brought
before this Court for consideration. So reckieesly
do menin official and responsible stations dispose OF
principles and rights Of supreme importance
The only other referred TO is the celebrated ole
of Prigg vs.. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I6 Peters R., 539 In examining this case remark,
first that the only question properly before the Court,
was the cOnsttutionality OF law Of Pennsylvania,
and az no opinion Of Court is OF any validity, except
40 far ar the question at issue is involved nothing said
pies be drawn as precedent TO govern future cases
beyond that particular law Of Pennsylvania. i,
In this position am confirmed by the remark OF
Judge Daniel who agreed with Judge Story in the
conclusion, but differed upon the opinion. He said:
GUIDED BY the rule lust mentioned Il 20 that the
regular action in this limited 10 eras'Hs
Visions with The bird e.a.e Of The fourth article Of con.o
ton and with the Of Congress Of 1898 and that % secoa
@s STATE pa and Fsssrsi Goss~s" VS.. HeEsr
proper"
iswel knownthat at the time Of the adoption Of the
Constitution very large party, comprising undoubt-
edy majority Of the people in many OF the states,
with Hamilton az their head, were anxious Tor q
stronger government. They not satisfied with It's
democratical features, but would have given much
more power 10 the General Government. Into the
hands Of this party the exercise of the functions OF the
Government first fell and many able and upright men,
in the performance Of their duties, in building upon the
foundation laid felt disposed to. and did use great
latitude in swelling the structure sometimes much De-
yond the fair constitutional limits
Such sentiments added to the universal conviction,
which time has abundanty verified, ths no msa soua
attain the highest honors of our Republic, who should
acquire the ill-wil of the Slave states, mas sedueeu
many men of great talents and deserved consideration
into strange anomalies in reference to slave law.
No one olds the late Judge Story in higher estims-
ton than do and yet think il impossible for any one
TO read his opinion the last quoted, without dis
covering the efferyescense Of this old Federal lesyen
somewhat clouding and wsrping his usually clear and
correct Judgment .
"In the case of prigg vs. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Court say Now this - the
loose manner IN which solemn ana enduring pfinci'
pies are disposed VI.
The Court say: Surely this must mean the whole,
or very large majority of the Court. The quotation
wss from the opinion Of Judge story. There appears
agreed "sts R n opinion s with story while ave others
namely, fancy, Baldwin, Thompson, Daniel and Nc
Lean, individually and distinctly declared that they
did not agree in the opinion with what Is called the
tbyaa off han DID
bis conclusion the unconsnalonalty Of the Pennsy-
vsnia law One Of them baldwin, dssented entirely
from the opinion of Story and from his conclusion, and
only concurred the ground that the person claimed
had admitted that he was slave. Three other Judges
-Tsney Thompson aud Daniel-held that the
power OF the States is concurrent with that Of the
United States, while Judge McLean sustained the
Pennsylvania law on another ground IL 10 worthy OF
power in the General Government, were given by
Judges from Free States. The opinions 10 favor Of
State rights and jurisdiction were given by Judges
from the Slave States. Now, what is this case worth
even in reference 10 the law Of 1873 AM how indn.
itely less, SIS applied to the law OF 1850
Ir HI. ,pinion, Judge Story says: III, indeed, the
Constitution guarantees the night sud II II requires
"the delivery upon the claim ct the orA,r where
"in the Constitution IL that word or des found rs
"cannOt be doubted the aotsroi inference ceroinlyu,
that the National Government is clothed with sppro.
PIRATE authority and functions to enforce It. How
as Il possible for eminent 40 Judge story, by
mere inference 10 clothe Congress with power 40 un-
usual aud ,nonsrous and at the same time be aware
of the provision tha; the pcsr' not Irrigated to the
United states by the Constitution reserved to the
Estates or People," Chief.Ju-tc- fancy in his
opinion, truly says: The obligation TO protect rights
Fof this description .@po.ed upon ds ieverai States,
"as duty which they bound 20 PERFORM sad
dis req soning applied To the law OF lsA seems to ms
quite unanswersee. The language used the Consti-
tuition, he says, does rot in my Judgment, justify
"tbe construction given by tho Court that is the
opinion Of Story. a. Ii contains no words prohibiting
he several States from passing laws for enforcing