The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-01-07
NJ ASSACHUSETTS.

AH6 Lh6lSLATUhE OF THE INCOM-
.Sn-v-r OUTGOING GoyERNORs-0oyERNoR
rpucp DEFIANT AND NORTHUMBERLAND
rous BANKS cokCILIArINa AND PATRIOTIC
Thing SCENE AT THE CLOSE OF HIS SPEECH.
Ae following extracts from the addresses Of the in
ming and retiring Governors Of Massachusetts contain
all which reference the great issues which are At
present pending between the Northern Southern
| tions Of the coniederacy:-
ADDRESS OF GOVERNOR ANDREW.
PROVISIONS THE srATrTFS CONCERNING LIBERTY
cannot however, forget at this moment recent
mpeachmens of legislation providing safeguards
personal liberty; but is impossible for mo 70 compress
review the objections alleged against that legislation
or even Of the reasons by which 1t commends itself 10
OPENS too broad Sod Of judicial INQUIRY and srSaton
TO be mapped out on this occasion But think that 1t
and of their children involved in ts consideration
and It could be forgotten in the discussion, that people
color have an existence some advance would thereby
clouded touching all matters which concern the African
race.
The governments Of the United States and Of this
monweath have coordinate jurisdiction, each within
s own sphere, over the same territory When either
by it's appropriate officers, has obtained actual and
lawful custody Of person or OF property for the pur
pose Of legal inquiry into the title 10 the property or
person for crime the person the property until
investigation shall be completed withdrawn from the
exercise Of the corresponding Jurisdiction Of the other GO
vernment This is implied from the very existence of
the two governments in federal relationship, and IT
rarely expressed in the statutes Of either although ap
plies with equal force TO both docs not depend upon
supremacy preference Of the government
the other but upon the naked question which Of them
first acquires jurisdiction Of the subject matter 10 be de-
| termincd.
The application Of this principle 70 the provisions Of
the general statutes Of Massachusetts concerning the writ
Of habeas corpus relieves them from all constitutional
objection Although statutes in terms require this
sheriff similar officer Of the Commonwealth, to be ad
dressed to the shers and their deputies las being the
appropriate officers to execute the process of the Com
| monwealth), and to direct them to take the body
of the person alleged to be restrained OF his
| liberty, well as to summon the person who
is alleged to restrain him. yet II the person 80 restrained
is held by marshal Of the United States by virtue Of
| lawful warrant from Judge or other authorized
officer Of the United States for the purpose Of conducting
any legal inquiry he cannot be taken out Of the custody
Of the United States until the hearing upon that question
be done is to summon the marshal to appear and
chow the Of the restraint, and this summons the
marshal bound by his duty as citizen and subject
of the State to obey If he shows process issued by
lawful authority valid to hold his prisoner the State
Court cannot take the prisoner from his custody for the
PURPOSE Of further exercise Of its Jurisdiction But If
the process being produced, proves TO be invalid in
sufficient for be purpose for which is proposed to be
used or an ALLEGED fugitive not in the custody OF
6c9r o. The United States but in that of private
son there Ia nothing in the Constitution or laws Of the
United States 10 prevent the trial BY the STATE courts
right Of restraint alleged and in such tho modes Of
proceeding and rules Of evidence are 70 be determined by
4 the constitution and laws Of the State.
BY the Massachusetts Declaration Of Rights each In
divdual Of the society has right TO be protected BY
in the enjhoment Of his life, liberty and property, &C
i
commonwealth ought to find certain remedy, by hay
ing recourse to the laws for all injuries and wrongs
acter. lie Ought 70 obtain right and justice freely and
without being obliged 10 purchase y, con.;;nvIey and
wou, any denial promptly and without delay, con
TO the spirit or .hc constitution, apd ing that ob
scurc anti friendess inhabitaGss Of the commonwealth
are most in danger Of being uniawiuy deprived Ct their
SEIZED or in danger Of being seized as fugitive from
service, fair and impartial trial; and have also i'm
pocad aIa tn pupis hue uhO
undertake to from the state any person in the
peace thereof and not fugitive from his service,
tent subject him. to slavery BY the well settled
principles OF the criminal law and the ordinary rules Of
construction Of penal statutes the unlawful intent must
with the unlawful act in order to subject any in
| dividua 10 the penalties OF this statute.
In 1912 the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case Of Prieg vs. the Commonwealth OF Pennsy wanna,
declared that "every state s perfectly competent and
has the exclusive right TO prescribe the remedies in its
judicial tribunals to limit the time well as the
modes Of redress and to deny jurisdiction cases
which its own policy and its own institutions either pro
hbit or discounenancc. And again, the Court in the
says that the States cannot be compelled to
enforce them e. the provision for the surrender Of
fugitives from lsbor) and II might well be deemed
unconstitutional of the power OF Interpretation
TO insist that the states bound to provide means to
carry duties Of the national government
nowhere delegated entrusted TO them by the consttu
ton" And again, the Court says in allusion TO the
powers conferred upon magistrates by the Fugitive
Act Of 1893 that to the authority conferred upon
state magistrates while difference of opinion has exist
ed and NAV exist stl on the point in different states
whether State magistrates bound to under
entertained by this Court that State magistrates may,
f they choose exercise that authority unless prohibited
| by state legislation"
| The decision not only frees the individual States from
action the matter, but also expressly recognizes the
power of the States to prohibit action by their officers
under the acts Of Congress Accordingly this Common
wealth soon afterwards in 1s43 enacted the statute pc
puarly known the "Latimer law, and made il penal
for any its officers TO aid in the capture detention Of
person claimed as fugitive from service; and In 1855 II
enlarged its legislation upon this subject by the addition
more comprehensive and stringent provisions framed
in the same spirit and for the same purpose But in 1885,
in order to prevent any confusion uncertainty in the
minds OF the militia which might from the idea of
divided duty, II imposed the responsibility for viola
tons Of these statutes by the militia, solely upon their
commanding officers by providing that their prohibitions
and penalties shall mot apply TO any act Of military ODE
dcnce and subordnaton performed by an officer pr
vate Of the militia" The prohibitions thus addressed to
the civil and military servants Of the Commonwealth, of
do not and cannot apply to them in their private
| capacity citizens OF the United States
II is certain that the legislation of Massachusetts IL
intended to be constitutional and am bound to declare
strctes consttutionaty. If, however, any party TO
any legal proceeding shall deem himself aggreved by
anything found written In our statutes consoed
which will bcstow most intelligent and conscientious at
| iention 70 his complaint Whatever legal truth the
judicial mind may perceive in this, In any other
gard will be declared because the Judiciary exists not 10
| make the law but 10 expound IL.
There can be no doubt that the first and most sacred
duty Of government Is TO protect the lives and liberties
Of subjects. believe that every person who is priod
ace free being in possession Of his liberty and claiming
title thereto that every parent being posscs OF his
child, or guardian having custody Of his minor ward,
rgbt 10 judicial vndicaon OF Ms rights IN That
| regard, whenever and wherever they practically
drawn in question. And do not think that certificate
issued 10 authorize a. person from California TO seize
and carry away, and for his fugitive apprentice,
the child Of white inhabtant Of Massachusetts (Which
certificate may under the Fugitive Act of 1880 be issued
without any previous notice hearing Of the child
It's parent can bar the right Of such child parent to
determination BY competent tribunal Of the right Of
the child 10 be retained IA this community, from which
perhaps he have departed since the hour Of
his birth %, too deny that certificate so issued toa
pcon from Massachusetts, authorizing him TO seize and
carry away ana for his fugitive apprentice, the slave
Of an inhabitant OF Georgia (Which certificate may
der the Fugitive Act OF 1850 be issued without any pre-
vious notice TO the MASTERY bar the right OF such
| master 20 determination by competent tribunal of
his right 10 retain his slave under the local law of
Georgia And the trial may in either case be had In
| competent forum within the jurisdiction where the
person may thus be seized The constitution OF the
United states, while II provides Tor the surrender Of
| persons charged with crime who have fed from
state into another nevertheless when speaks Of fug
tvcs from labor, expressly restricts the authority TO
L N fhn naIa NJ th1Sc .rho