Muscatine weekly journal. [volume] (Muscatine, Iowa) 185?-1890, 1859-06-10
The Oherlin Rcscuers.
JUDGE BRlNKERHorFS DECISION CONTINUED.

III. These REALTORS ought to be discharged,
because they have been indicted and convic-
ted under an act of Congress upon subject
matter in reference to which Congress has,
unde, the Constitution Of the United States,
no legislative power whatever.
AS to the correctness Of this proposition,
there does not rest on my mind the shadow
or glimmer of a doubt
The Federal Government is one of limited
powers, and all powers not expressly granted
to it by the terms of the Constitution, are
reserved to the States or the people. Amend
ments, Art 10.
"No person held to service or labor i'll one
State, under the laws thereof, escaping into
another, shall, in consequence Of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from service
Or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim
Of the party to whom the service or labor
may be due" Art. 4, Sec. 2.
This is the only clause of the Constitution
from which anybody pretends to divine, or
in which anybody pretends to find grant
Of power to Congress to legislate on the sub
iect Of the rendition Of fugitives from labor.
l can find in it no such grant. The first part
of it simply prohibits State legislation hostile
to the rendition Of fugitives from labor
Such fugitives shall not be discharged Gin
consequence Of any law or regulation of the
State into which he shall escape; but "shall
be delivered up.' By whom? BY Congress?
Bv the Federal authorities? There are no
such woras and no such idea is limited at.
This is evident from an inspection Of the
whole Of the preceding portion of This arti-
| Gle.
Art. +, Sec. |. Full faith and credit shall
be given in each State to the public acts,
records and judicial proceedings of every
other State. "And the Congress may By gen.
eral laos prescribe the manner in ,ohich such
acts, records and proceedings shall be proceed,
and the effect thereof" Here, in the first
place, is compact between the States res
pectively-an agreement of the several States
to and with each other, and the public acts,
records and judicial proceedings" ofeach shall
"have full faith and credit" given to them in
ALL Had this section closed here, would any
one claim that it embraced any grant of legis-
lative power to Congress? think not But
the trainers Of the Constitution thought that
Congress ought to have the power ito pre-
scribe the manner in which such acts, records
and proceedings should be proved, and the
effect thereof" and hence they have the
power in express terms. When they inten-
ded grant of power to Congress, and not a
mere contract stipulation by, or injunction Of
duty upon the States, they sag 50, and leave
us no room to cavil ON the subject But let
US go on
| Sec. 9 "The citizens of each State shall
be entitled to all privileges and immunities Of
citizens in the several States.
"a person charged in any State with trea-
son, felony, or other crime, who shall fee
from justice, and be found in another State,
shall, on demand of the executive authority
of the State from which he fed, be delivered
diction of the crime"
That these clauses of section two are mere
articles of compact between the States, de-
pendent on the good faith of the States alone
for their fulfillment, l suppose no one will
dispute. They do not confer upon Congress
any power whatsoever to enforce their obser-
vance,
Then follows the last clause of section two,
in respect to fugitives from labor or service,
first quoted. And this, like all other prece-
ding clauses of this article, except the first,
is destitute Of any grant of power, or even
allusion to Congress or the federal govern
ment Now, if grant of power to Congress
was here intended, why this silence? If the
trainers of the Constitution intended grant
Of power to Congress in this clause, why did
they not say so, as they did say in the first
section, in respect to public acts, records,
and judicial proceedings
It seems to me that no rational answer can
be given to this question, except by a denial
Of such intentions. Ezpressio unius erclal.
sio alterius, is legal maxim as old as the
common law. The express mention of one
thing implies the exclusion of things not
mentioned. 1t is the dictate of reason and
common sense. 1t is a maxim which applies
alike in the Interpretation of contracts, stat
utes and constitutions. Its application was
never more obviously proper than to the
question before us; and, when applied, it
seems to me to bring with it a force little
short of mathematical demonstration.
Thus far, have reasoned as if we were
ignorant Of the history of the constitution.
But glance at that history confirms the con-
illusions to which we are brought by the
ordinary rules Of Interpretation, and makes
assurance doubly sure"
The Articles of Confederation, under which
the struggle for independence was carried
through, and for which the present Constitu-
ton Of the United States is substitute, con-
tanned nothing but articles of compact. The
fulfillment Of its obligations was dependent
upon the faith of the States alone. The
Congress could make acquisitions, but had no
power to enforce them
Again: Certain provisions of the Ordinance
Of 1887, for the government Of the territory
northwest of the Ohio river, were, in express
terms, declared to be 'articles of compact"
Now, every one of the clauses of the fourth
article of the Constitution above quoted were
borrowed and transferred, with but slight
verbal alterations, from the articles of confed
Grafton and the ordinance of 1787-the first
three from the former, and the last from the
latter-with this exception only, that to the
first of these clauses was added grant of
power to Congress to prescribe the manner