Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1861-01-19

owner 10 recover MS property Is not 1ul'
flment of the obligation. If the State
throws no distractions in the way of the
owner it is certainly better than open and
active notification but it is not a fulfill
ment of her obligation to "deliver up" the
fugitive within her jurisdiction. 1t is true
that this is one of the duties in reference
to which coercion cannot be used against a
State. The federal government may use
its civil and military power 10 execute its
own Fugitive Slave Law and to nulify all
unconstitutional distractions created by
the States, but it cannot compel the States
to fulfill their obligations to pass laws in
accordance with this provision of the Con-
stitution. The moral obligation is none
the less on this account. With honest
men sco'd is as good as bomd. Penn
sylvania gave her wora when she agreed
to the Federal Constitution she has super.
added her oath 4; for all officers of the
State, from the highest to the lowest, ever
since the Constitution was adopted, have
; been solemnly sworn to support it. The
act of 25th March, 1926, was passed in
fulflment of this obligation. Its general
provisions were satisfactory to the parties
interested, but the first section of the act
was construed to deny the right of recap
ton. which was Common Law incident
) of ownership, expressly protected by the
act of Congress of 18th of February,
1893. For the exercise of this right, u
man named Prgg, agent for a slave owner,
was convicted of the crime of kidnapping,
, under the first section of the act 1876
The Supreme Court of the United States
reversed the judgment, and decided that
the said section of the State act was un-
constitutional. This was the only question
that arose in the cause. But unfortunately
for the peace of the country, Judge Story,
t who delivered the opinion of majority Of
the Court, volunteered an opinion that al
State legislation, including acts in favor OF
surrendering fugitives from labor to theil
owners, was unconstitutional, null and void
One of the reasons assigned on the record
D for this extraordinary doctrine, was, that
a State might "dole out its own remedial
justice or withhold it at pleasure" ant
y ''might greatly embarrass or delay the
Il exercise of the owners rights" and ''tha
{ the nature and object of the provision i'm
periously require that, to make it effect
'' ual )" it should be construed to ''be exclu
y sive of State authority" This captivatn.
S view of Southern ri shts by a learned judg
/ from Boston, won over three Southern
J judges, against the arguments and remon
IS strances of Chief Justice fancy, Judg
Is Daniel Thompson and others. 1t is Il re
i markable fact that in the life of Judg
+ Story, written by his son, it is recorded
20 that the Judge, when he returned to Bos
vvn, rpuno vi uns OPINION as "a great Poii
n gained for liberty" $50 great point IL
ne deed," adds the biographer, that the Judg
I'd repeatedly and earnestly spoke of it
he his family and intimate friends as being
triumph of freedom" The son undertake
st to explain what was meant by "a trump
D. of freedom by adding, ga triumph
II freedom, because it promised practical
to nullify the act of Congress, it bein
generally supposed to be impractcable
reclaim fugitive slaves, in free States, "a
cent uith Mr aid Of State fgisIitson a.
State authority" (Life of Judge Stor
is I'd vol, p. as3.) A regard for the rep
Mt taion of this eminent juriot, suggests II
ne hope that the son misunderstood the la
-. guage of the father. Be that as it ma
he the judges who concurrcd in that mischie
cb Gus heresy, "sowcd the wind" and Il
he nation is "reuping the whrlwind." II
N free States, justly indignant at this deni
nix of their authority on grounds which IL
Of pugned heir integrity, and glad to be r.
on lieved from a very painful duty, repcal
all their acts for the surrender of fugiti
ry, slaves, and withdrew all aid, of every de
it'll cription, in execution of the Fugitive Sla
vas Law. In the excitement of the tint
on, they also passed laws which seriously C
by barrassed the slave owner in the exerc
SOL of his rights. The Pennsylvania act
rty Sd March, ls47, is the act chiefly co
as. planned of. Its penal provisions VT
ing substantially rc-onactcd on the 3lst Mar
on 1860, having been reported for re-cnO
uth lnont by the Commissioners to Revise
it'll Penal Code. 1t is proper to bear in m
and that this legislation was chiefly founded
re- the dictum of the judges in Prigg's CT
the on question which did not arise in
cause, and which they had no right to
atcs cuss or decide; and the opinion on
ming question was therefore, not a jmllciaS
be tision, and ought not to have been res
nom ted MS such | am not aware that it