Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-06-06
MORNING LEADER.
The Habeas Corpus Case.
Dissenting opinion of Jusiic, SutliG

| fugitives from service; or even, If having such
power, the law under which the prisoners were
held was clearly repugnant 10 express proyis-
ions VI the Constitution, in either case the
return to the writ was insufficient.
After a careful examination of the whole
subject, he could not say that he had any rea-
sonabe doubt that this act Of Congress was
unconstitutional upon both grounds
Upon the first ground he insisted upon the
consideration that the legislative power being
in the States respectively prior to the adoption
Of the Constitution the reasonable presumption
as well the express provision of the 10th
amendment Of the Constitution, showed that
power still RENAL s with the States unless dele
gated under the Constitution to the Federal
Government And if the powers claimed by the
Federal GovernmI mt, to legisate, it is incumbent
to show title thereto, by pointing out the clause
under which the same had been ceded by the
| States.
lie then referred to the rules given by COM
mentators, which were applicable by the con-
struction of the Constitution. let, that the
meaning OF the instrument was to be sought
for according TO the sense OF the terms and un-
derstanding of the parties; that where tho
terms are clear and the sense distinct from the
language, recourse TO other means is not ad-
missible to ascertain the meaning %, where
the words are not plain and clear, but the
case where Interpretation is allowable; that
contemporaneous history, or Interpretation,
can only be resorted to, to escape some absurd
consequences, or guard against some fatal evil,
&c, DC.
He insisted that the meaning of the clause,
"NO person held TO service OF labor" &c, un-
der which the power to legislate was claimed
for Congress, was neither uncertain OF doubt.
ful; aud that the maxim, "h IS not aiiOlodble to
interpret iohat has no need Of Interpretation"
ought TO apply; that the clause was o naked
compact, the same as the two preceding clauses
which, while standing in the Articles Of Con-
federation, had been named and regarded as
mere compacts He urged that power to Con-
gress being expressed in /, and sec. 3, of
art. 4, and not expressed IN Sec 2, the maxim
erpreSSiO uniuS, &c, applied with double force.
He insisted that the plain and obvious sense Of
the clause was simply 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" aud was never intended, and could
not have been understood, to be a cession of
powers to Congress to egislate He denied
that contemporaneous history was admissible;
asmuch as the people adopted the constitu.
ton not upon history which was not submitted
to them, but upon the letter of the text, which
was; and when submitted to them, they must
be presumed to have read aud understood it
according to its obvious meaning.
Referring, however, to contemporaneous his-
tory, he showed very clearly that nothing could
be gained from that source, even if allow able
to refer to it, TO show that it was either under
stood OF intended that power should be deega-
> ted to Congress to legislate in relation tn fugi-
tives from service. The Fugitive law of l793
y was passed for the proposed object of reclaim
ing iugitives from justice, with very little at
a tention given TO the bill at the time that the
question of power was not considered But
the States on the other hand, claimed and cKer
sized ,tPe.-uow of legislatng upon the sam,
upon the subject until the decision OF the ftIgl
ease in ls42.
He then remarked upon Objectionable feature
OF the Fugitive Law of 1850; the commissioner
were vested with Judicial powers unconstiiu
7, tonally BY the provisions of the law tn,
right Of trial by jury and due process of laV
n were denied in violation of express provision
of the Constitution; that the provisions OF th
Constitution guaranteeing these rights, bein
~ contained in the amendments Of the Consttu
ton, they must have full force; however the
no may qualify the right Of the claimant as sun
mary removal Of the person owing service r
lie remarked th't the Fugitive Law OF lss
~ provided for the surrender of tugttlVes iro
service in other cases than that mentioned
30 the Constitution; that while the provision
the Constitution was only for the delivering
H., of (ugitiyes "held to labor in one State uRd
- lhe laws thereof" the act provides for the su
'u' render of fugtives "held to service og labor
ed any State" merely. The act was as general
its terms as any law upon the statute book, al
Of its provisions were applicable as all other &c
do eral laws, 20 every person within the state
was, therefore, not only unconstitutional Ia th
Dh it was enacted without power, and in author
ur' ng unreasonable seizures, and IN cases u
iry provided for by the Constitution, wltuholdl
eut due process OF law and deny ing right OF IT
by Jury, &c, but was, in It's provisions !
o.. grant subversiOn of the municipal laws OF I
~ States for the protection of the personal rigl
Se- of their citizens Ia determining the constl
tonaty of the fugitive law under consido
and ton, and upon which the conviction and St
tence rests, the act is TO be regarded as O
al equally ppicabe TO any free citizen OF
W. State against whom claim for service may
preferred by the provisions thereof.
AIRY He referred to the various Judicial opiniC
10 is erpressed some incidentally, and others dire
the ly in favor of the authority OF Congress to i
W. isate upon the subject of fuglllyes The O.
Tbe of Pripg " Pennsy yania, (6 Peters, b39, }
i,s, the only case relied upon in which Che Supre
=, Court Of the United States has ever attemp
E'- TO offer any reason for the claim OF power
'ntsi Congress on the subject The question '
not then necessarily before the Court for d'
the sion their opinion expressed IN that case
,u therefore necessarily, only an obHer dictu
..as and though expressed in favor OF the power
was only by an acknowledged disregard OF
soid generai rules Of construction applicable TO
are Constitution, and upon mistaken statement
the contempOranoous history and this, TOO WI
isci reference to contempoTaneous history was
heir admissible even il correctly stated Inc
that Z,ndt case 18th Howard 229J was only n
lnn fimance OF the former opinion as Is the ol
cy. ion recently pronounced IN the case Oh
the United States v. Booth.
.yer He also referred TO the contrary opinions
tten maintained and expressed by Mr Jefferson
ision Mr. Madison in their resolutions OF lI9s, ~
ealth duced into the legislatures OF Virginia and n
% II, tuoky, in relation TO the power OF Congress
'ne pass IAN act concerning aliens. lac also
30 ferred to the opinions OF Chancellor Walwo
- Chief Justice HornblOwer, Judge Baldwin,
.s. Mr Webster maintaining that Congress ha'
~ power to pass fugitive law, insisting that
avn power belonged, under the constitution, 70
AEN States alone to legisate upon the subject
d oil Speaking Of the previous decisions OF
Ihich Supreme Court upon the subject, and the
s. ations Of the State Judiciary 70 the Federal
oorR insisted that the State and Federal Judicia
snos were each by the Constitution, left indep'
ent, and ought 10 act with perfect indep,
ence; that it was not only the right but the
nave Of the Supreme Court of the State-in
rdiol clearly OF importance to the State OF It's cltiz
sufficient to justify such course, aud VI
AZ for circumstances which would dictate such e
else Of their discretion not TO suffer ques
- -. 10 be settled, TO any case coming before "