The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-09-10


Stee are so great that at present il is hardly poss
PIE 10 make larger steel gun than l2.p0upde
Inc go called steel guns talked off at present i
England are made of semi-steel and are YER
greatly INFERIOR IN strength to these.
-----@-------~-=---
/ lcoMMrNICATED]
| THE SUPREME COURT ON CoERCroN
10 October, 1859, Willis Lago, free coIorat man
was indicted by the Grand Jury of Woodfor,
! county, in the State of Kentucky, forthe crimo =
assisting slave to escape from his owner. Tn,
culprit having fed into Ohio, a duly issued and r.
gularly authenticated requisition was made b.
! Governor Magoflin, of Kentucky, upon Gorerno,
Dennison, OF Ohio, for the surrender OF the fugitive
Governor Dennson submitted the papers in the
case to e. i. Wo!cott, the Attorney-GeneraI NJ
ohio, who gave written opinion admitting tba,
the requistion and accompanying documents sniff
clenty complied with the provisions of the Federal
Constitution and the act of Congress touching tho
eSuaoition OF fugitives from Justice but ADVISING
inc Governor to refuse to deliver the fuoitivn
tne ground that the offence charged in the indict-
ment was no crime undar Tho lo,', -. - ~ i''ui't
Ohio. ' '''"'o "
Governor Magonin, believing that II wac no,
competent Tor the Executive Of Ohio TINS to re
iuse oocdience to the provisions of the Conslitu
uon ana the laws, made application, on behalf
S @ III 'ne name Q! the State of Ken lucky, to the
supreme Court of the United States during tha;r
session last winter for writ of 1aandGDug apainst
governor Dennisnn, as Governor of Ohio and as
Pg lePr rese,ltlng her sovereignty, to compel him to
surrender the fugitive.
The case attracted much attantio, a. .ho .;.
rom the great interest and gravity Of the questions
lnVolVen IN 1t, and was most elaborately discussed
at the Bar in all its bearings
The counsel for Kentucky maintained ,I,t ~.
0uty imposed upon Ohio by the Constitution was
hot merely moral obligation, but that it was such
Guty as could be enforced by the Court in case of
il Nv
ol tne functions with which they are invastad A.,
the Constitution; it was an absurdifv to as
Ser' tGat there was right to demand and p cor
responding obligation to deliver nm and ot H.,
same time to deny the existence Of ro,vor ~
coerce; that such power is necessarily impIied
anu without |; the Constitution, SO far from beinG
thg supreme law of the land. a myth.
- 10 points such as these, Mr.. Wolcott ittornrv
Henerai Of Ohio, replied, in an arGumant vortbr
OF ,he most ultra of the State Rights school
lie maintained "that the G0yernmpnt of 4ba
onteeo states IS one of limited and enumerated paw-
ers, derived primarily from the specific grant. Of the
Constitution, which is at once tn, s,urca ond
The law of all its being. l. is necessary correI
auve ot this proposition, and one declared bv the
unuIental law Itself, that each State still retains
complete exclusive and supreme power over all
persons and things within it's limits where that
power mas not been specially granted or restrained
oy th constitution; and that in respect to all this
., and unprohibited power, the
states stand to each other and to the General Gov
erhment as absolutely foreign nations"
"Ihat the subject matter of the controversy p,as
not appropriate for the action OF judicial power,
since 1t only concerns the execution of coo,noc,
dettreen Hates-independent as tn eaob o,bor f,.
the extradlton OF fugitive offenders and that fha
duty imposed by the Constitution and laws unnn
Unlo II duty at all, was one of 'imperfcct obga
ton "a moral duty incapable of enforcamrnt nv
Coercion, by the General Government az a,,ains, an
independent sovereign State
Inc opinion nf the Court, all the Judges concur
was ges,verea In March last by Chief Justice
iaHey, ana furnishes a most luminous and unan-
swerable repudiation of the war of coercion now
0elng waged by the Administration against the
Confederate States 9 Wv
The Court distinctly decide unan tho foots onu
merated above:
lst That the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
over the case had been too thoroughly established
nY previous adjudications to be open to further
dispute. " 'D0'
"a. That under that section of the Constitution
winch provides that "a person charged in anv
Htate with TREASON, FELONY, OR OTHER CRIME who
shall nee from justice and be found in another
State, shall, demand of the Executive AUTHORITY
OF the State from which he fed. be delivered mn
TO be removed to the State having jurisdiction Of
the crime, 1t was not competent for the Governor
OF ONO to inquire whether the offence charged was
a crime according to the laws of Ohio but that "a
by the words ''treasOn, felony or other crime -
was meant every conceivable offence recognized rs
such BY the laws of each and every State of tLe
U onion-and as the demand had been duly made,
and the documents ACCOMMODATING il were rom
larly authenticated, it was, under the Constitution
ana the act Of l793 the absolute duty of Governor
Dthhison TO deliver the fugitive without any
reference to the character of the crime charged or
TO the noicv or laws Of the State of Ohio
Sd That in the act of 1893 the words tGt shall
De the duty Of" &c, were not used as mandatory
or compulsory, but as declaratnrv of the moral
DUTY which 'THIS COMPACT" (i.e the Constitution
created when Congress had provided the mode oI
carrYlnr 1t into executions; that the act does not
duty nct any pGnenSte mt ffEeGgG f5r Ga@ct Of r .
IuSai on the part of the Executive Of the State.
nor Is there any clause provision in the Con
stltutlnn which arms the Government of the
United States with this power. Indeed. such n
Po'rer "ond Piocc eUery State under the control
amt dominion IF the General Government, cren IN
ne administration Of its Internal concerns and re-
serred rights
4th. Ihdt the Constitution 1rns n comDnct ,rhicb
ne States, AS SEVERAL sovERE1GNTIEs entered into
tcuh each other 'rhen bey ddoDted IT
otn. "that 1t woul d seem that when the Constitu-
uon was framed, and when the act of 1893 was
passed, 1T was confidently believed that sense of
Justice aud OF mutual interest would insure faith
ln execution OF this constitutional provision by the
Executive of every State, for every State had an
equSl interest IN the erec"lon Of n compact abso-
iutely essential to their peace and weI-beipg in
their internal concerns as well as members If the
union Hence the use Of the words ordinarily
employed when an undoubted obligation is required
to be pertormed-'it shall be his duty
"But il the Governor of Ohio refuses todischsrpe
ths DUTY, there is no power delegated 10 the ed
erai Government, either through the judicial de-
pertinent or any other department, to use apy CO.
ercive means to compel him.
Tha', therefore, the motion for a anandanuq must
be overruled
Each OF these positions is fortified in the strong
est manner, and defended, as they all are by the
united wisdom, learning and authority of the en-.
ure Court, may well be said to be impregnabl,
oan any man read this opinion and deny that the
wal ho" waged by the Administration upon twelve
oSn states is unconstitutional as well AS inn
poi'.ic anu uhhoiy Can any man with a heart to
ieei anu pran 10 think, fail to understand III if
the General Government, in none of ira darot
ments, can ind warrant under its charter .,
compel State to perform her plain duty, it asgur
edly, fortiori, must look in vain in that instru
ment for authority to coerce-by fire and sword
and slaughter-by servile insurrection-hy all the
horrors OF pillage, rapine and the scalold-twalve
unwilling sovereign States into a Union which
they have solemnv repudiated, and which they
loathe and abhor?
Is 1t not too clear for argument that if as the
Supreme Court say, the General Government pos.
sesses no power to coerce through any or all of its
dePdrtments the seeded States into the Union all
laws ior drafting soldiers null, all debts incur
red or contracts entered into void all treasu-
rV notes issued are so much waste paper and those
VINO furnish their money, their time and their per-
sonal services to the Administrations are doing 50
to no purpose, in violation of law, and with no
prospect OF reward. even repayment? The
prosecution OF the war is no longer a question of
poIicy-to be carried on or abandoned as crcum-
stances may warrant. 1t stands condemned by the
solemn judgment OF the only tribunal competent
to arraign tit is utterly lawless as well as wick
ed, and should be brought to close without delay
while yet the character of our institutions remains