Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1861-01-19
Ibe Antt GInprrp Buglr.
GOV. DENNIsON ON THE LAeo CASE.


Gov Dennison in his recent message thus treats
Of the above named case -
During the legislative recess the power of the
Executive Of the State to surrender Gugitves from
justice has frequently been invoked and though
as rule this class Of does not require spec
Ssl public notice, yet in two instances the appjca-
tions involved matters of the gravest moment.
The reclamation in one case was founded on a
eharge that the fugitive had stolen certain slaves,
with intent to defraud the imputed owner; and in
she other case, the demand was predicaed on an
indictment, charging the accused With aiding q
,'femGle slave" TO escape from her owner and
possessor." These cases did not, in my judgment,
fall within the scope Of the authority conferred on
me in this behalf, and my conclusion, with the
yeasons therefor, duly made known to the
Executives by whom the respective demands had
been made. Each replied, contrOverting the right
fulness Of my conclusion.
The legislative power vested in the General As
sembly comprehends an authority to provide for
the surrender Of fugitives from justice in cases
not covered by the Federal Constitution and this
consideration, added to the Importance Of the sub
ject ITSELF seems to render it proper that the
sons which, ia these instances, controlled my ac-
tiou, should 5e laid before you.
The persons demanded by these reclamations
wete then sojourners within this State, owing to
it allegiance, and entitled to the correatve right
& of protection. It's constitution aud laws secured
20 them, while dwelling here, the same measure Of
personal freedom and personal security, which be-
longed to its own. citizens. Speaking the Ian
guage of the great charter of English Liberties"
.ho hod tbotn yp,tbin ite linn
Its "shoud be deprived of life, liberty proper
{ ity,.witheut due process of law" The same prin-
.ciple has, in some FORM been asserted by every
other State, and finds conspicuous place in the
Constitution of tho United States.
Upon the acquisitions being made, it was my
r6rst duty to enquire whether the cases we're such
as called for the exercise of the power thus nvo-
'ked. Itwas readily ascertained that all my au-
shorty, in this behalf came from the familiar pro-
vision Of the Federal Constitution relating to the
surrender Of fugitives from Justice. Inasmuch as
this provision operates in restraint of liberty, it
must be rigidly construed, and every not fair
ly included must be held as beyond its scope, and
every doubt must be resolved against its applca-
tion. Rigorous as this rule seems, it's existence
and wisdom are alike beyond question. 1t is tho
bhme Tul6 III ldFOl VI iiVSItJ MulSu JuS Ouhdlueu
for centuries in that country from which we have
drawn our systems of criminal jurisprudence, and
the same rule which is to-day in all the States ap-
piled to criminal proceedings in every stage Of
their progress Adopted to protect the citizens
against the exercise of arbitrary power, tho expe
rienUe Of many ages has proved it's value and it
still retains its place among the chief safeguards
Of personal security. 1t has become fixed prin-
ciple of law, and yet, independent of its clear die
tates, | am satisfied that upon recognized rule
Of construction can the constitutional provision be
made to cover the cases in question.
These reclamations presented substantially the
same question, and were therefore to be determia-
cd by application of the same general principles
Each of them charged the accused with the COM
mission of an act by which "an owner and mas
ter" had been deprived Of his alleged "slave."
The question was thus presented, whether an act
Of this nature can be considered as either treason
felony or other crime," in the sense in which
these phrases are used by the Constitution. Man
ifsstly it is not treason. and manilesty, it is not
felony, according to the import of that word when
the Constitution was adopted.
Does "other crime" include every ofense de-
olared to be such by the laws of u StateH 1t 80,
my duty to surrender was placed beyond question,
But this l conceive would be most mschievous
and impracticable interpretation. For, if by "other
crime" is meant any act made criminal by the law
Of State, then the Executive of each State is un.
der constitutional obligation to remand its citizens
70 another, for any act which the Legislature Of
any Bate may designate as crime. In mis-