The Cass County Republican. [volume] (Dowagiac, Mich.) 18??-1880, 1861-02-28

StepS lOr It's STauudl dDOllllOn, 10 WHICH
as desired consummation, those emil
nent patriots and true statesmen of the
time, George Washington, James Mad
ison, and Thomas Jefferson, labored
with an earnest desire to see accom-
plished as soon as soon as it could with
safety be done.
In many of the States, however, this
could then not be accomplished. BY
the law of nations, and by the common
law, the state of slavery is considered
as mere municipal regulation, limited
to the range of the laws of the juris-
diction where it exists; and no State
was bound to recognize the condition
of slavery as to foreign slaves found
within its territorial limits. ssG9-
The clause of the Constitution above
cited became therefore necessary
condition precedent to.1he adherence
of those States to the Union which did
not contemplate, from any cause, the
speedy abolition of slavery.
Now, if this clause, or the laws
passed by Congress to carry it into eff
feet in pursuance of it, could be rem
dered Intellectual or hindered, by State
Legislation, then, SO far forth the con-
stitution would be nullifed. In the
language of Mr.. Justice Story, in the
case of Prigg VS.. Pennsylvania 16
Peters Reports. p. 6l2, delivered in
1912:
"The clause manifcstly contemplates
the existence of a positive unqualified
right on the part of the owner of the
slave, which no State law can in any
way qualify, regulate, control or re-
strain. The slave is not to be dis
charged from service or labor in con-
sequence of any State law or regula-
ton. Now certainly, without ipdulg-
ing in any nicely of criticism upon
words, it may fairly and reasonably
be said that any State law or State reg
ulation we are still quoting Judge
Story's words which interrupts, limits,
delays or postpones the right of the
owner to the immediate possession of
the slave, and the Immediate command
of his service and labor, operates pro
taaato discharge of the slave there
FROM"
Congress having mistaken to provide
for carrying out this provision of the
) constitution, and its action being in
conformity with the provisions of the
constitution, as has been repeatedly de-
cided in the State Courts of Massachu
setts, New York and Pennsylvania, and
in every court in the United State
where it has been called in question, j,
becomes question how far the States
can properly legislate upon the same
subject. 1t may be conceded that or
some subjects Congress has concurrent
power of legislation with the States
But OIL this subject of the recapture o.
fugitive slaves it would seem to be {
necessity that Congress should posses.
sole jurisdiction over the subject
, First, because the power exists only by
virtue of the constitution of the United
States, and is there for the first time
7 recognized, and is there recognized as
an absolute right and duty, throughou
the entire Union. As Mr.. Justice Sto
t ry remarks in the case above referred
e to, ''It is in a just sense new an(
+ positive right, independent of comfy
r confined to no territorial limits, anC
: bounded by no State institutions O
: policy" And again, at would be {
strange anomaly and forced construc
I, tion, to Suppose that the national gov
t ernment meant to rely for the due ful
: filment of its own proper rights and du
f ties, and the rights which it intended
: to secure, upon State Legislation, AM
n not upon that of the UEion. 4 .fortori
4 it would be more Objectionable to sup
g pose that power which was to be tn
! same throughout the Union should b
, conided to State sovereignty, whicl
S could not rlghtfully act beyond its owl
o territorial limits. Secondly, the natur
r of the power and the objects sough
o to be attained, render it necessary tina
y it should be exercised and controlle
e by the same will, and that uniform reg
uations should exist over the entir
It Union. If the States have the righ
IS of legislation on this subject, eac
e State will adopt its own policy, pre-
IS scribe its own rules and forms, accort
e ing to the feelings and perhaps prejl
n dices of its own people, and the law
r of one State may be in direct confiio
Is with, and wholly inconsistent wit
/, those of another. "Wherever," say
'e Chief Justice Marshall in the case /,
h Sturgisvs. Crowningshield a, Wheatol
r Rep. 122, "the terms to which powt
10 is granted to Congress, or the aaatul
10 of the power require that it should
E. exercised exclusively by Congress, tn
er subject is as completely taken fro
~ State Legislatures as if they had bee
in forbidden to act"
The Supreme Court Of the Unite
of States, therefore. in the case of Prie
he vs.. Pennsylvania, in 1912, the opinic
at of the Court being rendered by Justit
in Story, of Massachusetts, and concurre
s. in, as to its main conclusions, by Judg,
e. Thompson and Baldwin, all three
e. whom are departed from the confic
Or of the present day, and by Chief Ju
M tice Taney and Justice McLane, Ju
or tice Daniel decided on these ground
of that the act of Pennsylvania, of ls2
to entitled "An Act to give effect to Il
Q, provisions of the Constitution of Il
es United States relative to fugitives fro
he labor, for the protection of free peop
I'D of color, and to prevent kidnapping
nd updor xybso1, prsnn Uac arrocfQH qy