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

tives from labor, is ecclusiye in the Ma
tional Congress, and that no State can
pass any law on the subject. In this,
Justices Story and McLanei agree.
While Chief Justice Taney and Justice
Thompson held that the States might
enact laws on this subject, which did
not IMPAIR the right, but none which
impeded or hindered recapture. But
all agreeing that the points decided
do not interfere with the police power
OF the States to arrest and imprison flu
gitives from labor, to guard against
their depredations or misconduct, or
to punish them for crimes committed
in the States where found. All the
Judges concurred that the constitutions
al provision on this subject was a fair
compromise, the Southern States agree
ing on their part that the importation
of slaves into the United States should
be prohibited after 1908. We may re-
mark in passing, in view of this last
consideration, that it behooves the free
States to be cautious about infringing
upon their part of the bargain.
The Supreme Court of the State of
New York announced the same doe
trine unanimously in 1884, in the case
of Jack VS.. Martin, IL Wendell, Rep.
Sl2, in which the constitutionality of
of the law of that State providing for
the writ de hOnaine replegia,ado, or writ
for replevying man, as against the
agent or person claiming fugitive
slave, came directly in question. That
Court declare that the law of the Uni
ted States enacted to carry out the
constitutional provisions, the Constitu-
ton being conceded to be supreme,
''must be paramount from necessity, to
avoid the confusion of adverse and
conflicting legislation that $50 far as
the States are concerned, the power
when thus exercised, is then exhausted
and though they might have desired
different legislation on the subject, they
cannot amend, qualify, or IN any man
,aer alter it," That 'this principle UNI
doubtedly essential to the peace and
harmony of the two governments"
! Our own Supreme Court, six years
since, unanimously declared the same
doctrine, except that in that case the
power of legislation was concurrent
and not exclusive, being not in a slave
case, but no less conclusive for
, that reason, on principle. The act
of Congress of 1850 provides that
, mortgages or enrolled and licensed YES
sells shall be recorded in the office of
the Collector of Customs for the e-prop-
CT district. The State law of lS46 pro-
, vides that all ehattel mortgages shall
! be recorded in the Office of the town
J Clerk. The act of Congress is author
, lied, as all agree, under the clause in
! the Constitution, providing that Con.
gress may regulate commerce, &c.
The Court agreed that the State law,
f so far as it was inconsistent with the
! act of Congress, must yield.
5 The same principles are also abun-
dantly declared in various cases, aris.
! ing upon statutes on various subjects
in the State and United States Courts
: But it would seem that the plain Ian
J guage of the constitutional provision
t in question, ''That no person held to
: labor in one State under the laws there
] of, escaping into. another, shall in con
sequence of any laao or regulation
!, therein, be discharged from such ser
l vice or labor. can hardly be mistaken
r by candid mind.
a Now those sections of the statute O
: Michigan, of 1855, propose, by bill
: referredt to the committee to be repealed
: provide for different mode of. tria
: from either of the acts of Congress
/ framed in accordance with this consti
tutional provision and provide, as die
], the laws of Pennsylvania and New
y York in the cases above referred to
e for transferring the case from the au
e thorities provided by the act of Con
b gress, to tribunal of its own. Now
n if fugitive be discharged, under th,
e hdbeas corpus, or on jury trial, wht
It had been taken under the act Of Con
It gress, is he not discharged from servic,
d or labor in consequence of the law O
8 this State, into which he has fled? ? w,
e think it clear that he is. The under
It signed cannot, therefore, resist the con
b clusion, that these sections of the &C
e last referred to, are unconstitutional
l. and should for that reason, if no other
l. be repealed.
IS But it has recently been claimed tina
It this law was not enacted for the pur
h pose of preventing or hindering the al
rs rest of Fugitive Slaves. What els
Of could have been its object, judgin,
n, from its provisions, its language, an,
er the circumstances-for any other pul
re poses of personal liberty, the punishin
'e of kidnapping of our own citizens, an
le pie provisions were already in the stat
m ute book. The known and inevitabl
N operation of the act, if carried ou
must be to prevent rendition of Fug
ID tive Slaves-and we can only Judge {
e the intent of an act by its necessar
IN consequence, unless the law maker
,e have otherwise specifically declare
I'd their intent. But in this instance W
es are not left wholly in the dark on th
of point, SO far at least as the declaration
is of a committee of the last legislatur
s- on Federal Relations are concerned
IS when this subject was before then
Is, They distinctly declare in their repo
g, that ''the act of February l3, 1856, WI
he designed, and if faithfully execute,