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

who dare be free, but until then we
cannot do it with clean hands or pure
hearts, neither could we indulge the
hope that the God of batteries would
smile upon our cause.
And now, in concluding this report,
for the sake of confirming the views we
entertain and of satisfying some who
have expressed desire to know what
were the opinions of the Judges of our
Supreme Court of this State on the
subject we have discussed, we will
embody some extracts from letters from
three of the gentlemen who occupy
seats on that bench, written, to be sure,
as private citizens, who have right
to have, and express their views, and
although not of binding force, are cer-
tainly evidence of their views as law
yers, and entitled TO great respect.
Chief Justice Martin says -" / re-
gard the law of 1855 both unnecessary,
as the common law affords ample pro-
lection to the citizen if illegally ar
rested, and unconstitutional, as infring-
ing upon the jurisdiction of Congress,
which / hold to be exclusive upon the
subject of the arrest and restoration of
"fngitives " from labor;" and regard
that of 1859 as unconstitutional, in so
far as it renders penal, without qualifi-
cation, an act which, in many cases, is
made lawful by the constitution and
laws of the United States, and is GER
tainly contrary to the spirit of the Con.
stitution. And, again, he continues,
"Why should it be made a penal Of
fence to merely claim that which it is
impossible to make effectual without
incurring liability already provided
for" And, again "The difference
between the qualification of law of
Congress and session is not SO very
wide, that we can with justice condemn
the one, if we are ourselves guilty of
the other" ~
Says Judge Campbell, in another
letter.: " When the Constitution of the
United States places any subject under
the control of the Legislative or other
authority of the Union, it is either re-
moved entirely from the province Of
State Legislation, or Tin case where
concurrent powers may be properly ex-
ercised), exempted from the operation
of any unfriendly action. When Con-
gress has once acted upon such sub
ject, no State can interfere with the
Congressional action" Speaking OF
the case of Prigg VS.. Pennsylvania,
we have cited, Judge Campbell says
=" / think that decision Is not oaaly
binding, 6ut right IN principle" Again,
he says: :-"Our statutes do not merely
legislate upon the same subjects with
the acts of Congress, but they are
plainly inconsistent with those acts.
The Constitution plainly, and the acts
of Congress expressly contemplate that
a claim to fugitives shall be disposed
of more simply and speedily than suits
in the ordinary course of legal proceed.
ings, which may be protracted infinite
ly. When a fugitive is arrested u,ade'
the act Of Congress, no State has ans
right or poaoer to interfere soith the pro
ceedings. They are under the control
and therefore under the protection
solely of the United States nor has
any State the right to interpose obsta
cles in the way of lawful arrest which
will vexatiously delay or impede it. ,
Again, in referring to the claim made
by some, that these laws may be al
lowed to stand for proper purposes, and
that if void as to other, there is nt
need of their repeal, he says that -
"When a Court declares a thing plain
ly within the language of statnte,, t.
be exempt from its operation, because
if embraced it would render the law un
constitutional, it is merely roundabout
, way of declaring that the law is void
, The meaning of a statute is not al
lowed to be gathered from the outsid'
. sources. Those who adopted it ma,
, have differed very widely in thei
views of the effect. 1t is not to be pre-
sumed that any honest man woult
Knowingly violate his oath. And n,
! explanation or declaration, in any form
can altar the meaning which the word
fairly express" |" Should such legis
lation be permitted to stand I? thinl
not. When attention has been callet
{ to any existing abuse, those whe per
> nit it to continue are justly held re
. sponsible, in the eyes of all men, TO
. its further continuance" "To subjec
the State to imputation of notification
' is to expose our honor"
Judge Christiancy, in another lette
E on this subject, says: "The abstrac
s question, whether these laws are un
e constitutional is of no practical impor
/ lancet is mere abstraction-fo
: such is the peculiar nature of the cas-
' that the practical effect of either cor
4 struction is the same-the one holdin
e that it does not contain a particular Pre-
q vision, the other that it does contai
t that provision, but that such provisio
t is void and therefore in legal effect tn
v same as if it had never been inserted
e But while these acts remain upon tn
e statute book, unaltered, until decide
], upon by the Court of last resort, the
: will continue to have all the practic:
s effect of unconstitutional laws. The
8 are calculated to create doubts an
j. lead to litigation. Their effect is ais
IS the same upon the public mind, bot
l. at the North and at the South. For I
: the popular apprehension all laws wi
d be understood to operate to their Leg