Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1861-03-06
Mr.. cox's Report on the kidnapping

ia.-sar'an wi h5he rr-amm-ndqti q
a., n .fqa; Pee COMMITTEES. tia. a.
lass q each stat, saca'l BE- xlua>ii It
o1-r - ascertain Et.sse a..o .4y law.
how in force upon their Statute bOoks
which might conflict with the Constitution
OF the United States, Il committee was ap
pcanted by the Legislature of Ohio, t,
make such examination. The only law,
about which there vas any question. wa
shat. 40 Percent kidnapping" A bill
was in trOduced in the Senate to repeal til,
ID. section of this act, and Mr.. Cox wa
appointed a committee of one to report up
on it. The rel ort is an able one, and ha.
received the just co~mmendation of the Re
publican Members of the Legislature, am
the Republican press of the State. eener
ally. Here vat the Cleveland Herald
says:
One Of the able reports of the session is
the following by Senator Cox. of rrumbEH
As legal or juridicai argument. it i,
among the best papers produced here MIR
Cox s~ustains a very high IA k among tht
Senators as a calm. candid. but thorough
bred and intelligent legislator.
M cox. from a select committee, re-
ported back thu hill for the repeal Of the
act to prevent kidnapping with a recon-
mediation to Indefinitely postpone II, fol
the following reasons, viz:
The undersigned. to whom Senate Bin
No. 29', to repeal the second section Of
the act to prevent kidnapping was referred.
would beg leave respectfully to report adj
versely to said bill. and to recommend
that it be indefinitely postponed; and would
submit the following considerations:
The bill was introduced by a majority
Of the standing committee on the Judiciary
under 4 resolution of the Senate directing
the committee to examine what acts of the
legislature, in force. if any, are contrary to
the Constitution of the United States, and
to introduce a bill fer their repeal.
The section referred to in the bill is
said by the majority report to be the only
law or part of Il law which the committee
are satisfied is unconstitutional. and the re-
peal Of which they Recommend.
The section itself is as follows. viz:
Sec. >. That no person or persons shall
kidnap or fore Ihly or ~frandulently carry
off or decoy out of this State, any bllck OR
mulatto persons or persons within this
State. claimed as fugitives from service or
labor, or shall attempt to kidnap or forci-
bly, or %fraudulently carry off or decoy out
of this State any such black or mulatto
persons or persons. without first taking
such black or mulatto person or persons
before the court, judge or commissioner of
of the proper circuit. district, or county
having jurisdiction, according to the laws
of the United States in cases of persons
held to service or labor in any State esca-
ping into this State, and there according
to the laws of the United States, estab-
fishing by proof his OF their property in
such person. Swan & Critchfeld's Stat
utes, Vol. l. P. Ais.
The question of the repeal of this sec
ton does not necessarily involve that of
the original power of Congress under the
Constitution to legislate upon the subject
Of the rendition of iugitives from service
or labor, because the section itself recog-
nizeS such power, and only makes criminal
the act Of kidnapping or forcibly or
frauduicntly carrying off or ~decoying out of
the State" persons under the cllim of their
being such fugitives, without first taking
proceedings before the proper Quilted States
officer in pursuance of the United States
laws.
By repeating the section. therefore, we
shall emph tically say that the slave mas
ter has the constitutional right, '.torci6iy
or traUduLenay to carry or or decay out
of this State any black or mulattO person
whom he may claim" as Il fugitive from
service CT labor, and that, too. without
any legal assertion of such claim before
the proper United States ofiuer or judge,
not tc say any officer or judge of this State.
Before the Legislature of Ohio thus de-
ny their power and their duty to protect
their own citizens against the mere claim
that they may be fugitives from service,
the most cearful examination of the subject
is demanded.
The clause of the Constitution of the
United States which the section under
consideration is supposed to violate is as
follows: Art. +. Sec. =.
No person held to service or labor in
one State under the laws thereof, escaping
into another, shall III consequence of any
law or regulation therein, be discharged
from such service or labor, but shall be
delivered up on claim of the party to whom
such service or labor may be due"
BY an analysis of this clause We find
only two obligations imposed upon either
the State or individuals; the one a mega
tive one, and the OtIer a positive one; viz:
LIST. That the iaws of the State shall
not be held to discharge the fugitive from
the service or labor due.
ID. That the fugitive shall be deliver
ed up on claim.
1t is Tot pretended that the section IN
question violates the first of these PROPOSE
tiUns, and as to the second, so far is it
from being true that it forbids the delivery
of the fugitive being made upon claim, that
no one shall be liable to its penalties who
makes his claim before United States au-
thorities in accordance with United States
lawl
Since, therefore, the statute of Ohio
does not assume on the part of this State
any authority over the subject of tn rendi-
ton of fugitiyes from labor, but explicitly
recognizes the legislation of congress as be-
ing the only legislation in force on the
subject;-since it does uot attempt to dis
charge the fugitive from the claim of ser
vice or labOr;-and since it does not at
tempt to vary the mode OF legally asserting
the claim as fixed by the legislation Of the
federal government, your committee would
feel abundantly justified in asserting that