New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-12-13
THE Personal LIBERTY LAWS.

VeDent pTeteAt l0r scccsslon duu IcH"iuti"n ~ ~
notoror that Only few years ago her political
leaders so far from considering the Personal Lib
erty law a justification for revolution and civil
war, actually approved Of it as constitutional
and unobjcctiOnable manifestation Of their own fa-
yorite doctrine of State Rights.
During sir. Burlingame's speech in Congress,
June q, 1856, in defense Of Massachusetts, he
remarked that South Carolina herself held the
Fugitive Slave law TO be unconstitutional. Mr..
Kett of that State, interrupting him, said:
wish to know from the gentleman from Massachusetts, by
what authority says South Carolina holds the Fugitive Slave
law to be unconstitutional"
Mr.. Burngame replied, /" BY the authority of
"The Charleston Mercury" and taking copy Of
that journal from his pocket, he read the fol-
lowing:
OF he action Of Massatu, in Me dbrogatoH Of The Fa-
oitire Slate law loe hare complaint make 1t from the
miserable usion and in fact for Il was an IA
upon Of The eerisd principle Q lac Con-
u,on which provides that gtiyes from labor upon demand
shall be delivered up bat gre Congre por to act 10 the
Affair amendment to the Constitution provides that
the powers delegated the United States reserved TO
the people The clause shove coniers no power
but the declaration Of rights and the not being
conferred results the OF the incidents of sover
eighty too be trusted to the General Government Our
Southern sroye the passage Of the law and troye
honoaby but IT shows the evils Of unfortunate condition.
that IN the contest with aggressive adversary
we the landmarks Of principle To obtain an ursiye TIL
umph pressed the Government TO assume power not con-
erred by of s creation and to establish prece
dent by which all after time it Will be authorized to
unconsttutiona powers and weared with efforts to
confne limits of legitimate are pleased to
have assistance from Massachusetts aud if the question shall be
determined her favor shall sincerely rejoice at such viz
dicaion Of the Constitution"
To this citation from The Charleston Mercury,
Mr.. Keitt had nothing to say, and he took his
seat silenced and cOnfOun1ed. Not one of the
representatives from South Carolina yentured to
reply. And yet the Personal Liberty law Of
Massachusetts, at that time was far more string
ent than it now is. 1t contained provisions
which have since been stricken out because their
consttutionality was not clear and unquestiOn-
able Massachusetts has never attempted to null
lily the Fugitive Slave Law. Her Personal
Liberty enactment is strictly in harmony with
the Constitution of the United States and the de.
cisions of the Supreme Court She has amply
shown her desire TO keep within Constitutional
limits by the repeal two years ago of all the
clauses of her Personal Liberty law, the con-
stitutonality of which might be questioned
though no Court had ever pronounced them to
be unconstitutional. We do not think she is
likely TO take any further steps in the WY Of
repeal, and certainly not under the cOmpulsion of
threats from South Carolina.
The argument of Tie Charleston Mercury against
The constitutionaty of the Fugitive Slave act
has never been Rented and is, in fact, unan-
that refers to fugitiyes from labor is this:
mo person held service labor State under the
regulation therein be discharged from service
labor but be delivered clsim Of the party whom
such service OF labor may be due.'
This clearly binds the State into which fugi.
tive escapes to deliver him up on claim, but in
nOwise authorizes Congress to legislate on the
subject, nor the Federal Executive to invade the
State and seize the fugitive, as is done by the
Fugitive Slave law. The powers of Congress
are rigidly limited by the Constitution, the tenth
amendment TO which declares that 4" the powers
"not delegated to the United States by the Con-
"stitutiOn nor prohibited by it TO the States are
preserved to the States respectively or to the
"peoIle.'
Mr.. Jefferson, in the celebrated resolutions of
49, referred expressly to the assumption by Con-
gress of powers not expressly granted to it in
these words: Where powers are assumed BY
/" the General Government which have not been
"delegated, a notification of the act is the
"righttul remedy that every state has a natural
" right TO-" This doctrine OF Mr.. Jedcrsons isuni.
versally upheld by the Southern dsunionists, aud.
therefore, on their own principles, every State
has natural and constitutional right to nullify
the Fugitive Slave law, which, as Tie Charleston
Mercury proves, is an assumption by Congress Of
powers not granted to it. Neither Massachusetts,
nor any other Free State, however, has yet re-
sorted to this mode of redress. No Free State
has nulliied or attempted 10 nulify law of
Congress. The Personal Liberty laws merely
protect the inhabitants of the Free States from
kldnappeTs, and secure to those who are charged
with owing service OF labor fair and impartial
trial, such as the Constitution OF tho United
States guarantees to every person. Ii South
ern stakeholder seize9 his slave in Massachusetts
aud proves his claim to him, the Personal Liberty
law offers not the slightest obstacle to his rendi.
ton. But it very justly, and righteousy, and
Consttutionaly, provides that the claim shall be
clearly established before the person seized shall
BE- carried of. 1t secures to the person charged
with owing service or labor the same legal AS
sistance and thc same opportunities of defense
that are granted to person chan ed with muir
der or any other crime. Ii is sometimes main
tanned that the fugitive slave is in the same
category with the fugitive from justice, and should
be delivered up as summarily. But the cases are
not parallel. The fugitive from justice charged
with murder for instance, is not delivered up like