The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1861-01-18

y, p,opes tbnf the reason. vhss!s msA.ss..
stances, coffolisd my seccs, shcs1t - hid
,The pesscps ,s. acmanded ,v ,hes. rvv4,rla.ccs
.ere then scjoufners within tIss ssu&s. sws~g
lto " allegiance, and entitled n the eoruon1fve
right oi protection. Its G1nstisatis8 - Dsws
secured TO them. while dweIIine here u0Usue
Iourit, which belonged 70 - cwS s1srlsaa<s
speaking the language VI tAe Hnpo>a ukGea<S
lof Ensiish iibesass,f = tho spsts ~ 9eg)sssd
sss.s tnas no enc G within - li.iss .sfguid y =.
due process of law" Tie same prfSefvGs M,
in some form, becn asserted " sseIy ollser
state, stat, and nnds eonspiegcxs pfsssss ~ Csu.
Upon the sequisitions being sssds, uwas
my first duty TO enquire whsther the sxses
were such rs called for the exercise 81 The
power thus invoked. II was readily seref-
tanned that all my suthority, in this behalf
came from the familiar provision soes fhs
Federal Constitution relatsag To the SuSyen-
der OF fugitives from justice, lnssmuch ~
thus provision operates in restraint ofiiber.
tY, II must be rigidly construed, and every
case not fairly included must be held - be-
yond ITS scope, and every doabt must lie
resolved against its applications. Risososs
A. this rule seems, its existence and wisdom
are alike beyond question. Il is the same
rule in favor OF liberty winch has obtained
lor centuries in that country from which we
have drawn our systems OF criminal justs,
prudence, and the same rule vfich - day
in all the states is applied to criminst pso-
ceeding in every state of theit pfosress.--
Adopted 10 protect the citizen against the
exercise OF arbitrary power. the experience
OF many ages has proved its value, and II
still retains its place among the chief safe.
guards OF personal security. II has become
fixed principle Of law, and yet, independ.
ent of clear dictates, sm satisfied that
| upon no recognized rule OF constructions can
the constitutional provision be made 10
cover the cases in question. arrsst3.t vs
\ These reclamations presented subs.ant-
tally the same question, and were therefore
to be determined by the application Of the
same general principles. Each Of them
charged the accused with the commission of
an act by which can owner aud MASTER had
been deprived OF his alleged "slave.'' The
question was thus presented. whether an act
loi this nature can be consideeed as either
treason, felony, or other crime,'s in the
sense in which these phrases are used By the
Constitution. Maniiestly il ia nottresson,
and manifestly IT is not felony, aecosdinRsto
The import Of that word when the Constitu-
/ ion was adopted. r... 4ses .v.,.
Does "othet crime incluies every OF,
4 Tense declared to be such by tho iawssofa
: sialei II so. my duty to surrender WAS
placed beyond question. Bat this i con-
ceive would be a most misc hies ouS and in.
practicable Interpretation. For, ifby"other
criine' rs mean, any act made criminal by
The law OF state, then the Executive of each
state is under constitutional Obligation 10
remand IFS citizens 10 anolher,s for any act
which the Legislature Of any state Hay de-
Signate Ps a CRIME. In this sense the word
'',-' ft,'s-' f'ss "u utnar rrshniu uN vUs1 ts>Ar
which LegNiaLnrs, iG its discretion, may
q ,l..l, ..Ixl II
the Executive OF each state wouldbe created
BY the captice, aud the Liberty OF tho c,isz<u
would be deprived, upon the l.gislattcnof
the others Such a construction OF the
constitutional provision could not be iol-
Grated, for il would lead 10 Infinite abuse;
nor could its obligations be enforceJ., ,ssss,-.
II, then, by "uther crine' it was not
intended TO make the citizens OF each state
liable to rendition at the dissection OF the
Legislature ofevery other state, and q more
limited and definite meaning is to be given
to the term 'or other crime,' whete shall.
that limitation be foundl .... .-.4aq- ..
The provision under consideration WAS
introduced as a rule OF International Law
between the states. As International is,~i
must have a definite meaning, understoods
aud recognized when entered into by the
states. IL must have the same meaning in
all the states. Its construction, Therefore.
must be determined by the general and ac-
cepted meaning OF the terms used at the time
the provision was adopted.
What, then, was the received acceptat ion
Of the words "treason, felony, or other
crime,' when the Constitution was framed!
The common law. its Jury Indictment.
rules OF evidence, and definition OF felony
md other crimes and misdemeanors, was
interviewer with the criminal jurisprudence
OF all the original thirteen states OF the
tnion. The Constitution itself. more than
once expressly, (Art. VII, anendm.nts,) j and
everywhere by necessary implication, re-
GognizeS this system as a part OF the rational
jurisprudence. e. aud in the federal tribunals
It Is constantly appealed to, not as a source
Ot jurisdiction, but AS the mtanJ by which
jurisdiction, when given, is 10 be exer-
cSed. aud as furnishing the rules by which
the grants Of power of the Constitution IRE
10 be interpreted and applied. The very
phrases ''ueasOn, felony. aud other crime
n the provision now IN question comes to
us from that soafce, and without refetence
to II, one at least Of these phrases is utieIly
unintelllglble. These considerations are
conclusive that the Constitution at large,
aud especially this clause of it, was deawH
with direct reference to the system Of tho
common law. as afotling The guide to its
exposition and administration.
That the oifenses stated in these requisi-
tons are unknown TO the common law is
too manifest 10 need remark.
Although the rule oi the common Law
seems to be a safe guide in determining what
are crimes within the meaning Of the Con-
stitulion, | have not been governed by that
alone.
THIS provision OF the Constitution us has
alrenIy been stated, is rule OF intsrnstioR.
al law between states. Its Construction
may. therefore. be very property Determined
by International law. Tie eSttadition of
criminals has never been extended To purely
local ofences, growing out OF domestic in
s;itut ions. aud the word 'crims'' would
undoubtedly he resar led, in an sxptsss com
pact between two states, as relating not
merely to grave offences deemed wroae By
the general conscience Of the Christisn
world, bat as crimes by the laws and ussges
Of all civilized nations.
II, then, the crimes referred to in the Con-
stIiutlon are not any acts whatever, which
any state may caprIciolsly declare to be
such, the meaning of the Constitution must
be found in what arr defined to bc crimes
by the common law, or recognized as such
by the law OF nations. II Is clear that nei-
thef the common nor International law, re-
coenIzvs the acts namst ~ thes. tequs,-
tons aS "crlmrs.' aud ! cannot admit. n,it
d. believe any state wall admit, that lis
citizens are subject TO irquisitiOns for any
act which any other state may declare to bs
"a crime.
In reaching this conclusion. ! have not
been unmindinl of the ineonyenie ncss TO
which It may sometimes give rise. Occa.
'iOnally it must doubtless happen thai an
offender against the local laws aud the local
policy oi one state wIll escape pn naisLlirni
Gy seeking refuge III anothef state. THIS
fortune however, bsislls all cotsrsniapus
states, aud has not been found to entau
ienuuS mischief, OF to jistHtb the hstulony
of their peaceful relations. BESIDES, il q
infinitely better that an olfender shonh oeI
caS,onaiy escape. than that u state shonil
be Obliged TO recognize and eniorce the lava