Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-02-20
OHlDLEGlNLA1 IRE,
AbJouRNED sHssroS NA
Arrrnnoon srsaloN.
IN SENATE

III. ] RslOl--kelativo 70 the hhte VI i9iess
ms by the late oasrter-M Master eenerab =.
7. Andrews, spthorizipg aesstlsmens y I'm MN |
, the premises, was adopted
Mr cox presented memorial from John An
erson, js., and others, asking for the passage Of
bill for the redemption OF the Seneca County
|ank notes. Mr.. Monroe.
TIE KIDNAPPING BILL.
Mr.. cox, from select committee, reported
ack the bill for the repeal OF the act TO prevent
,idua pping, with Recommendation to inden
,itely postpone IL, for the following reasons
De: .as -, ~.
The undersigned, to whom Senate Bill No
,Oo to pepeal the second section of the act TO
,revent kidnapping was referred, would beg
cave respectfully to report adversely 70 sa,o
,ill, and TO recommend that it be indefinitely
andswould submit the following con-
alterations;
The bill was introduced BY majority Of the
standing committee on the Judiciary, under
resolution Of the Senate directing the committee
70 examine what acts Of the Legislature 10 ioree'
n any, are contrary TO the Constitution OF the
United States, and to introduce bill Tor tne'r
repeal. -
I rne section referred to In the bill is said BY
the msIority report to be the only Law which
the committee are satisfied is unconstitutional,
and the repeal of which they recommend.
h The section itself is % follows, viz:
Sec. g. That no person or persoDs shall kidnap
or forebly or fraudulently carry on or decoy OUT
Of this State, any black or mulatto person or
persons within this State, claimed 90 fugiuves
from sersicso or labor, or shall attempt to kidnap
or forcibly or fraudulently carry on or decoy
out OF this State any such black or mulatto per-
son or persons, without first taking such black
or mulatto person or persons before the court
Judge or commissioner Of the proper circuit, dis
frict, or county. having Jurisdiction according
10 the laws Of the United States In case, of per
sons held TO service or labor in any State escap
ing into this State, and there according to the
laws Of the United States, establishing by PROOF
his or their property In such person. Swan 4
Critch6eld's Statutes. Vol. i, p. 4ls.
The question Of the repeal oftbis section doe
not necessarily involve that Of the original
power of Congress under the Constitution te
iegislate upon the subject of the rendition ol
fuRitives from service or labor, because the
section itself recognizes such power, and only
makes criminal the act Of kidnapping or for
/ eibly or fraudulently carrying of or decoyinR
out of the State" persons under the claim oi
their being such fugitives, without first taking
proceedings before the proper United States
.flcer IN puysuaace Of the United States lave
By repeating the section, therefore. we shall
emphatically say that the slave master has the
constitutional right, "torcibLy or fraudulently "a
oayyy If or decor out OF this State any black or
! mulatso person" whom he may "elaim," as q
fugitive from service or labor, and that, too,
without any legal assertion of such claim before
the proper United States officer or Judge, NOT
co say any officer or Judge of this State.
Before the Legislature of Ohio, thus deny
their power and their duty to protect their own
citizens against the mere claim that they may
be fugitives from service, the most careful ex-
animation Of the subject is demanded.
Z The clause OF the Constitution Of the United
States which the section under consideration lie
supposed to violate, Is as follows Art. q,
6eo . @% ,t.ft
"No person held to service or labor In one
State under the laws thereof, escaping into an
other, shall, in cinsequence Of any law or reg
ulation therein, be discharged from such service
or labor, bus shall be delivered up on claim Of
the party to whom such service or labor msy be
due"
By an analysis Of this clause we find only two
obligations imposed upon either the State or
individuals; the one 9 negative one, and the
lst, That the laws Of the State shall not be
held to discharge the fugitive from the service
or labor due
9od. That the fugitive shall be delivered up
on claim. M sIYEi 2 5Pa FbEUft
Il is not pretended that the section In ques-
tion violates the first Of these propositions, and
a. % the second 90 faris II from being true that
it forbids the delivery Of the fugitiye being
made upon claim, thstit fully provides that no
Dne shall be liable 20 Its penalties who makes
nis claim before the United States authorities
M accordanae With Unitnd al~ssei--t
since, therefore, the statute Of Ohio does not
assume on the part Of this State any authority
over the subject of the rendition of fugitives
from labor, but explicitly recognizes the legis-
lation Of Congress as being the only legislation
IN force on the subjsctj --since It does not at
tempt 70 discharge the fugitive from the claim
Of service or lsbor,--and since IL does not at
tempt to vary the mode Of legally asserting the
claim as 6xed BY the legislation Of The federal
your committee would feel abund
lntly jusnfsd In asserting that there 10 nothing
IN tie section sought TO be repealed which need
,fend the greatest stcklsrs for the ''soutb-side"
Interpretation Of the Constellation Of the United
states. - -
Bat 10 asserted that the Interpretation given
70 the federal Constitution by the U. 8. su-
preme Court, as we'll as the fugitive slave act OF
Z iueitive, and carry him out Of the State With
out making any assertion of the claim before
suy court or tribunal whatever, and the section
{ DC sctandsr consideration interieres with this
right, and 10 therefore unconstitutional.
Upon this point your committee would urge
the consideration OF several propositions, viz:
( /. That every Legislative body ia, In the en-
actmentof lave, bound 20 follow iis own jude-t
mens Of the constitutionality Of its acts, and
hoaever wise 10 may be 70 seek aid In the con
sideraton Of sneh questions, By careful study OF
learned Judicial opluions, there 10 or can not be
any authority In those opinions which snould
con,ro the cotton OF this Legislature.
Z We are sworn TO make laws IN acoordance
with the Consultation of Ohio, and Of the Uni
ted etates.r Judges are sworn TO try particular
cases II accofaance with these fundamental
laws, and the judiciary has no exclusive right
90 fx the Interpretation Of the constitution
The several depsrimsnts OF the goverCm, nt are
co-crdinate and independent, and the high du-
lies imposed upon each are TO be hone silly per-
formed according 10 the conscience and the
Judgment OF each This hiss been fully reoog
nixed by our highest judicial tribunals. In the
case OF the G.. w &T. r. r. COMPANY vs the
Of cllnion county, In the eu-
preme Court Of this State, Judge Ranney. Civ
Ing the opinion Of the Court, declared that "the
Legislature 10 Of necessity, In the first Instance
% be the Judge ofis constitutional powers. It's
members aci under an oath TO support the con.
,titu,ion, and In every way are under respon.
abilities 40 judicial officers" l. o. D. r SO
Again, the relation OF the two departments
was well and truly expressed BY Judge Gholson
10 the case Of Foslsr vs. the Commissioners Of
Wood county. 80 8 R. 5l2 ] 'sThe gene.
ral and abstract question whethers On act Of the
egislature be constitutional, cannot with pro.
,flety be presentsd 70 COURT de qrssfion must
je ssheiha fhs act furnishes ths rule 10 goperR e