The national Republican., 1860-12-24
3 fugitives, which was the got existing ut the

the CertlfCate TO warrant the return OF tugltiveS
from labor, to be given by any United States
Judge, or by any magistrate Of a county, city,
or torn corporate" where such fugitives might
be arrested. But although the act of 1893 thus
gave jurisdiction TO State magistrates, the court
decided that such jurisdiction might be declined
by such magistrates, at their option, and that
they might be prohibited by the State Legisla.
lures from exercising it.
make the following extracts from the opin.
ion of the court in Priggs case, drawn up by
Judge Story, as sufficiently indicating its gen.
eral drift.
The court say:
"The clause relating to fugitive slaves is
found in the National Constitution, and not in
that of any State. 1t does not point out any
State functionares or any State action to carry
its provisions into effect The States, there.
fore, cannot be compelled to enforce them, and
| it might well be deemed an unconstitutional
exercise of the right Of Interpretation, to insist
that the States are bound to provide means to
carry into effect the duties of the National Gov
crnment, nowhere delegated or intrusted to
them by the Constitution. On the contrary,
the natural if not the necessary conclusion is,
that the National Government in the absence
of all positive provisions to the contrary, is
bound through its own proper departments,
Legislative, executive, or Judiciary as the case
may require, to carry into effect all the rights
and duties imposed upon it by the Constitution"
And again, the court say:
"The act of 18th February, 1893, relative
to fugitive slaves, is clearly constitutional in
all its leading provisions; and, indeed, with the
exception of that part which confers authority
ou State magistrates, is free from reasonable
doubt or difficulty. As to the authority 80 con.
ferred on State magistrates, while difference
of opinion exists and may exist on this point,
none is entertained by the court, that State mag.
istrates may, if they choose, exercise the au.
thority, unless prohibited by State legislation"
In his separate opinion given in this case,
dissenting from some Of the views of the ma.
jorty of the court, Chief Justice Taney says:
| The State officers mentioned in the law are
not bound TO execute the duties imposed upon
them by Congress- unless they choose to do so
or are required to do so by law of the State
and the State Legislature has the power, If It
thinks proper, to prohibit them
1t is really by no means clear that State courts
and magistrates have even the optional right to
assume the jurisdiction given by the act of 1893,
or by the supplemental act Of 1850. 1t is main
tanned, with great show Of argument and author
ity, that judicial powers, under the Constitution
of the United States, can only be given to the
courts Of the United States, and to judges ap
pointed by the President and Senate.
In the case Of Ely rs. Peck, I Conn. Reports,
239, which was a case Of desertinr mari
ner, under an act of Congress which, in terms,
gave jurisdiction TO the State courts, the Con.
necticut Supreme Court declined the jursdic.
ton.
In the old case of the United States Us. La.
throp, II johnson, 4, which was suit under
the act of Congress of lSl3 for penalty for sell
ing spirits without paying license duty imposed
as war tax, and which act, in terms, gave juris-
n tha iaia rtu pptnn nlvl, khxN
York Supreme Court decline the jurisdiction,
but they did it upon the ground, SO far as q ma.
joriy Of the court were concerned, that the State
courts had no right to accept If even so inclined
jurisdiction in cases arising exclusively under
acts Of Congress.
1t is, at any rate, doubtful if State courts and
magistrates ever had any right to take jursdic.
ton under the acts of Congress of 1893 and
1850; but there is certainly no doubt at all,
both that they may, if they see fit, rightfully de-
cline it, and that they may rightfully be prohib.
tied, by State law, from exercising it.
1t will not, apprehend, be doubted that the
decision in Prigg's case was made in the inter-
est and at the instance Of the institution of sla
very. There were respectable opinions, and
even eminent opinions, such as that of Mr.. Web
ster, which favored the doctrine that the surren.
der Of fugitves from labor was only duty i'm
posed upon the States, and to be performed, of
course, according to the discretion of the States,
in matters of detail. Considering that Con.
gress will always be more likely to make efficient
provisions upon the subject than the free States,
to whom the surrender Of fugitives from labor
can never possibly be anything but an odious
duty, it was clearly for the advantage of slave.
holders, that the jurisdiction of Congress should
be declared to be as peremptorily exclusive as
it was declared to be in Prigg's case.
The decision in that case created great sur.
prise when it was announced. II was not in
harmony with the previously existing popular
notions upon the subject, and there were spe.
cial circumstances which gave it an aspect of
harshness and abruptness. The cas, itself
arose in Pennsylvania, under law of that
Commonwealth passed in 1926, not to embar.
rass the rendition of fugitives from labor, but
with an exactly opposite intent. The Penn.
sylvania law of 1926 was passed at the special
instance and with the appreciation of commits.
sioners of the State OF Maryland, appointed to
procure additional friendly legislation from a
friendly neighbor. With the lapse Of time,
new views Of policy had arisen, and it is to
these new views that the decision in Prigg's
case is unquestionably to be ascribed.
u well recollect, what it was in the line of my
then occupation as an editor to notice, that
consequent upon the decision in Prigg's case,
the sentiment became common in the free
States that if the States had no duty to per.
form in the premises, and especially if even
their right to act in aid Of acts Of Congress was
denied, they would best consult their own dig
nifty, and at the same time fail in no oblga
ton, if they retired altogether, and withdrew
their officials altogether, from the business of
returning iugitves from labor. 1t is thus truly
this decision in Prigg's case, and not any ir
tent to evade constitutional duty, which h.,
caused the Legislation of the character of the
NJ
This is certainly true Of Pennsylvania, which
| in lS41 enacted a law the same In suhstance