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


slaves
The judges Of the Supreme Court Of Ohio, 10
l845-46 were Justices Wood, Burchard, Reed and
Hitchcock. Three of these judges had this sub
ject before them The Supreme Court, in 1916, in
regular session in Cuyahoga county, held by
Judges Wood and Burchard, brough. before them
on habeas corpus, one Richardson, who was in
custody on charge of kidnapping he having
knowingly aided to carry one Berry, an escaped
slave, out of the State, without taking him before
a Judge or justice of the county and there estab-
fishing his right of property inBerry, agreeable to
the ass Of the U S. This was punishable as kid
mapping by the laws of this State, passed in 1881.
90 vol. Stat, 422. Swans Stat Ed. I840, 600.
The court alter referring to the decision Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States that ak leg
slation the subject of the reclamation of slaves
is exclusively in Congress, held that the act in
question: upon which Richardson was Imprisoned
was null and void, under that decision of the SUI
prcme Court of the United States. 0 Law Report
err BIC.
The power of Congress to egislate on this sub
ject was very ably discussed, and fully recog-
n4ed by Reed, Justice of the Supreme Court OF
Ohio in l845 in the case of the State v. Hoppess
on habeas corpus. 2 Wes Law Journal 279.
| The cases to which have referred will be de-
tailed and the rulings Of the courts discussed By
brother Peck. ar
have examined, with some care, the reports o.
the decisions of the other States, and have beer
unable to fud single decision of any Suprem,
Court, of any State in the Union, denying to Con
gress the power to legislate upon this subject.
The cases decided by the Supreme Court o
I Wisconsin, have been cited as an exception t.
this Uniform and rnbroken current of authority
sustaining the legislative power of Congress.
One of the three judges which composes that
Court held, that the fugitive slave laws were un.
constitutional and void but the majority of the
Court did not participate in that opinion, but dis
charged the relator on the ground that the ofense
charged in the indictment did not contain suf
fcient description of the statutory oense describ-
ed in the fugitive slave law.
The Genera, Assembly Of the State of Ohio have
also recognized, in statutes Of tho State the fug-
tive slave law of 1893 as operative and in force
Swans Stat, Ed. 1910; 500, GOO, secs %, 27.
| But treating this question if no decision had
ever been made by the Supreme Court of the Unit.
ed States or by any Court of the free States, how
does the question stand? a-
IF the Constitution of the United States had no,
been formed, and Union of the States thus ere.
ated, each as distinct States, would have had the
right, under the fundamental law of nations, to
have decided for itself upon its internal con-
dition and regulations in its own territories. II
any of them, while thus responsible alone to their
own people, should have introduced slavery, other
Nations or States would have had no just right to
interfere, would the people of foreign States be
responsible politically or morally, for it. The
Constitution of the United States was framed. and
the Union perfected, subordinate to, and without
violating the fundamental law of nations, to which
| have alluded and it would therefore have been
in vain for the government of free State to in
sist that they wJuld enter into no compact, be-
cause slavery was wrong and unjust. The people
and the government of no State of this Union
are responsible politically or morally, for the do
mestc institutions or regulations of the others.
In the compact of Union, the trainers of the
Constitution guaranteed to the owners of escaped
slaves the right of reclamation. 1t is made par
of the Constitution, rrepealable; and to be chang
cd only by the power that made it, in the form
prescribed by it.
1t was designed to be practically and peacea
BILE mode by winch fugitive from service nigh
be delivered up. 1t cannot be extended by imp!i
cation the fugitive must not only owe service o.
labor in another State, but must have escaped from
It. This is the extent and the limit of the righ
of the master.
The Constitution of the United States went int
operation in March, 1889.
In 1898, the second Congress elected under tn
Constitution of the United States, and composed
of many of the members of the Convention whicl
framed the constitution, an act was passed pro
viding for the rendition of fugitives from justice
/, and summary mode for the reclamation OF fu
git;ves from labor. By this act rescuers, obstruc
ers and barborers of escaped slaves were to b
visited with penalty not exceeding five hundre
dollars.
No jurist will deny that If Congress can provid
penal forfeiture for an alleged violation of law
they have the legislative power to superadd i'm
prisonment for the same oifense and that no cour
can pronounce the one constitutional and the ott
er without legislative authority.
This law was passed by Congress without an
traces in history of constitutional objection ba
been ever since that time by every department, {
the government, national and state not only RI
/. ceived and acquiesced in as the law of the lane
but in active, practical operation throughout ever
State in the Union. Enacted at the commencmer
, of our government, it has been in operation ft
sixty six years. al .aH OF sa. p ei fo4fr
1t is conceded by the counsel for the reatoI
that if Congress has no power to legislale on tn
# subject they never had any power to legislate u
on the subject of fugives from justice. The sam
X reasons for holding that the one is usurpation
, legislative power, is equally fatal to the othe
n Both stand precisely on the same ground.
e. The Executive departments Of the States of ii
n Union have, believe, acted upon, and l am NJ
10 aware that any have denied, the constitution
p. aity Of the law of Congress for the rendition
fugitive criniinsl' .t