Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1859-06-09
mo. a.,

to Congress to prescribe the manner Of
4 proof and public acts. records and judicial
proceedings. Here, then. we have certain
articles of compact-admitted or declared
to he such. and nothing more-borrowe,l
and transferred from one instrument to an
other, with no intimation Of any Change
OF their character as articles Of compact.
except In q single instance, where the
change Us expressly declared. The infer
ence seems TO me to be irresistible. that
except so far as the change is ex; r.ssly
7 declared, they remained after the transfer,
the same as they were before-articles Of
compact, and nothing else.
/ conclude. therefore, that the States
are bound in fulillment Of their plighted
faith, and through the medium of their
laws. legislation and functonares to de-
liver up the fugitive from service or labor,
on claim 0: the party to whom such SER
vice or labor may be due under the laws
OF another State from which the fugitive
has fled. But the federal government has
nothing to do with the subject, and its in
reference is sheer usurpation Of power
granted, but reserved
4 But, it is said, the question is settled,
and our arguments come TOO late. deny
that it is settled
The federal legislature has xsurped a
power not granted by the Constitution,
and federal Judiciary has, through the me-
dium of rcasonings lame. hslting, contra
dictory. and of farfetched implications.
derived from unwaranted assumptions and
false history. sanctioned the usurpation.-
l deny that the decisions Of a usurping
party in favor of the validity of its own
assumptions, can settle anything. 1t is
true that the courts ami legislatures Of
several Of the States have decided in the
same way; but they have been decisions of
acquescencc rather than of original and
independent inquiry. The fact that such
jursts as Hornblower, Walworth AMI
Webster thought on this subject as think.
shows that the question is now settled
The fact that majority of my brethren,
and understand they admit if this were
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 the ques-
tion is not settled. The truth is, IL i Mt
until recently that the mass of Intelligent
and inquiring mind in this country has
been brought TO bear upon this question.
Ii required the enactment and enforcement
Of the fugitive slave act of 1850, overriding
the most sacred and fundamental guarsn-
tees ofthe Constitution, and disrcgarding.
: in its provisions even the cecencies Of leg
islation, as if for the very purpose Of irita-
tion, and humiliation, and the fiae and i'm
: prisonment under it of whic men for the
exercise OF the instructive virtues of hu-
manity. to awaken general inquiry. That
inquiry Is now going forward. And so
: surely as the matured convictions OF the
= mass of intelligent mind i'm this country
must ultimately control the operations of
government in all its departments, so sure
/. ly is this ques iion not settled. When il
is settled right, then it will be settled. and
J not till then.
But, cotcmporaneous construction is
f. applied to. | admit its weight, and its
! title to respectful consideration. But CO.
Y temporaEeous construction speaks with
divided voice. 1t is true, Congress as
early as 1898, legislated for the return of
fugitives from labor. But nearly if not
: quite every one of the old states had also
legislated on the same suhiect in fulfill
ment oil what they deemed a matter Of
constitutional obligation resting on them.
And such legislation on the part of ths
: States. old and new. continued until the
: Supreme Court Of the United States, in
: the Prigg case, as late as 1842, (l6 Peters.
$50. assumed for the federal government
exclusive autho -ity over the subject. And
those who appealed to cstemporaneous
$ construction should themselves respect
it. From the foundation Of the govern
mcnt until within the last ten years, Con-
gress claimed and exercised without ques-
ton. full and complete legislative power
over the territories of the United States:
and as early as 1923, in American insu-
rance Co. V. Canters. Il Peters. $40, the
Supreme Court of the United States Chief
Justice Marshall delivering it's opinion.
unanimously decided that in territories
Congress rightfully exercises the Com
bined powers of the general and of a State
government" Yet, in :he recent case of
Drel Sc 1T Y. Sanford (19 Howard
393, all this is overturned and disregard
ell. and the whole ast theory and practice
of the government in this respect attempted
to be revolutionized by a judicial iDss Dirt
We are thus invited by that Court back
to the consideration of first principles;
and neither it nor those who rely on its
authority have a right TO complain i We
D accept the invitation.
i know of no way. other than through
the action of the state governments, in
which the reserved rights and powers Of
: the states can he preserved, and the guar
: antees of individual liberty he vindicated.
The history of this country. brief as it is.
already shows III. federal Judiciary is never
behind the other departments Of that gov
: ernment, and often foremost, in the as
sumption of on-granted powers. And
let it be finally yielded. that the federal
!. government is. in the last resort. the au-
thoritative judge of the extent Of its own
e powers. and the reservations and limiia-
s tions of the constitution, which the trainers
of that instrument so jealously endeavored
firmly to FIX and guard. viii soon be, if
$ they are not already. obliteratcd. and that
government. the sole possessor Of the only