Holmes County farmer. [volume] (Millersburg, Ohio) 1857-1926, 1860-06-28

IIlt lURlllNt III uNthllOIs Aut lIl1 lllt ~
again limited by the statement that "tho
power of extradition is not to be cxer-
cised as, of course, in every case which
may apparently fall within tie ruic here
asserted" This qualification would seem
to have been added from a superabundance
of caution. --.--
The rule adopted by you, it will be
seen at a glance, would forbid the surren-
der of fugitive from justice charged with
crime, in almost numberlcss instances,
although the crime be well defined upon
the statute book of the State where com
mitted, because, forsooth, it is not a crime
at common law when the constitution was
adopted, or not recognized as such by the
usages and laws Of ALL civilized nations
For example: Certain injuries and OBJ
structions to telegraph lines and railroads
are crimes by our statute, and perhaps by
yours. Were they crimes at common law
when the constitution was formed? OBJ
tanning money by false pretenses, and
other description o: frauds, are now made
crimes by the statutes of some of the
States. Were they crimes at common
| law uJ lDC dNlppllDu vi llIC communion
Or is it certain that the laws and usages
| of "aU civilized nations" even now de-
nounce them as crimes and telonics?-
! Look over your own statute book, and
YOU will doubtless see many crimes de-
| fined which werC not so at the origin OF
our common government, or which the
/ Judgment or laws of all civilized nations
! | nn ;-gpn
| tion for the surrender of n fugitive from
the Justice Of your laws without first as
certaining whether the crime with which
he stands charged was a crime at com
mon law at the adoption Of the constitu.
ton, or is made such by the laws of ali
civilized countries?
Your Attorney General-aud yourself
adopting his opinion-say that the in
dictment which accompanied my requisi-
ton upon you "is quite nartticially
framed, and it might be found difficult to
vindicate it's validity according to the
rules of criminal pleading which obtain in
oar oun courts D.. e., the courts of Ohio,
or wheresoever else the common lar pre-
walls"
1t would seem, from this attempt at
criticism, that not only are the laws Of
Kentucky, which do not conflict with the
Constitution of the United States, defn-
ing crimes, to be annulled by the laws OF
Ohio and the ancient common law, but
likewise the mode of procedure prescribed
By orr cote Of practice and pleadjRg. for or
courts and Justice. You are doubtless
aware that many of our sister States, as
well as Kentucky, have simplified theil
system of practice and pleading, by then
own ntotutc laws; and the critieiem nov
made upon this Indictment, instead of ad
vancing with these judicial reforms, would
lead US back into the labyrinth Of Jlack
letter times.
But to return to the main question:
Shall the constitutional provision which
! have quoted, and the act of Congress,
be obeyed? Shall the rights of sover-
eign State of the coniederacy, her laws,
and her institutions, be respected?
Judge Story in his Commentaries on
the Constitution, remarks that, "howevel
the point may be as to foreign nations, it
cannot be questioned that it is of vital
importance to the public administration
of criminal justice and the security Of the
respective States, that criminals who have
committed crimes therein should not find
an asylum IN other Suites; but should be
surrendered up for trial and punishment
1t is u power most salutary in its gen.
, eral operation by discouraging crimes and
cutting off the chances of escape from
punishment. 1t will promote harmony
and good feelings among the States. and
it will increase the general sense of the
blessings of the national government"
But it is needles to quote authorities
Our claim is founded upon the binding
obligations of plainly written consttu
tion and an equally unambiguous enact
ment by Congress, passed in pursuance
thereof.
] shall not stop to enter into the dis
cuSsion of our right of prol erty in slaves
That is n question not open for debate
, 1t has been too long recognized, and 10y
too many sanctions, to admit, at this day
of controversy; and especially by those
who are ready, upon the merest pleteNt
, to deny us our constitutional rights per
lHllllUS W lIdI utStl Dilbll w pi'pNl'N
1t is sufficient to say that the Federal Con
stitution was the work of delegates whose
almost entire constituency were citizens
of slave States. 1t may in truth be said
, that the constitution was the work O
f slave e-holders-that their wisdom, mod.
Grafton, and prudence gave it to us. Nor
slaveholding States were then tie ercep'
, ton, not tie ruie The organic law ofth'
, nation recognized by its provisions, ii
unmistakable terms, the right to slave
property, some of which provisions were
designed for its protection.
With regard to the argument that some
, of the States have declared to be crimes
offences which appear trivial to others, i
/ is only necessary to remark that if it i
, for each State to settle and determine fo
itself, and by its own laws, when not il
, conflict with the constitution of the Unit
; ed States, what acts shall or shall not bc
Q considered criminal when committee
within its own limits and jurisdiction; anC
no violator of such laws should be suffer
e ed to escape with impunity because off
GERS, whose business it is to execute an,
$ not to enact the laws, may think then
: too severe.
q According to the rule laid down b,
n YOU, all that would be necessary for
l. 4