Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-02-01

i
that Constitution. perhaps as this glorious Union
of whose organic laws il forms a part And il is
an Efficient fugitive slave law. IL is capable Of
being executed without the all of any legislation.
This has been solemnly decided We quote
again from the opinion of the Court, in the case
above cited, as deliyerei by Judge Story. one OF
the parest men ami most learned and able Judges
that ever graced the Benrh-a New Highlander,
Massachusetts mau He proceeds:
I'VE have said that the clause lin the Consti
tuition contains positive and unqualified recog
milton of9the rights OF the owner in the slave,
Unaffected by any State law or regulation what
soever. because thee IS no qualification
striction Of il to be found therein; and we have
no right to insert any which is not expressed. and
cannot be fairly implied Especially are we
stopped from so doing, when the clause puts the
right to the service Or labor upon the same ground
and to the same extent in every other State in
the State from which the slave escaped. and in
which he was held TO the service or labor. Ii
this be so. then all the incidents that right
tach also.
"The owner must, therefore have the right to
seize and rep ,ssess the slave, which the local
laws of his own State confer upon him prop
erty: and We all know that this right of seizure
and recapture is universally acknowledged in all
the slaveholding States. Indeed, this is no more
than a mere affirmance of the common law ap
plcable to this very subject Mr. Justice Black
stone @ Bl. Com a. lays il down as unaueStion
able doctrine, Recapture reprisal (slys he) is
another species OF remedy by the mere act OF the
prrty injured. This happens when any one hath de
prived another of his property in goods chat
ties personal, or wrongEully detains ones wife,
child or servant, in which case the owner of the
goods. and the husband. parent or master, may
lawfully claim and retake them wherever he
happens to find them so it be not in riouous man
ner or attended with a breich Of the peace. U pom
this ground we have nor the slightest hesitation
in holding that, rndea and IN virtue of the Con
stitution the owner of 4 slave Is 81 thel with en-
tire authority, in every State in the Union, to
seize and recapture his slave whenever he can do
it without any breach of the peace. or any Illegal
violence. In this sense, and TO this extent, this
clause Of the Ge"s';.--'i--. 49, properly De salu
execute itself, and require no aid from Leg
islaIion, State or Naton1l."
The return of fugitive slaves being thus &C
complished in virtue of the Constitution, il FOL
lows that he who obstructs such return violaie s
the Constitution and im?ugus the wisdom aud pa
triotism of its trainers IL is but right That
should here state % you that the point decide in
the above quotation from the opinion of Judge
Story, was not necessarily involved in the case
then before the coIrt; but sill the decision has
tie force of law. IL is the usual practice with
most appellate courts to decide points presented
in cause. though not necessarily involved in
order that the people, by an early knowledge Of
the law, my be relieved of further difficulty on
account ri its uncertainty The Constitution of
Indiana expressly requires this course to be pHr-
sued by the Supreme Curt OF this State Chief
Justice Marshall Carried the usage TO an extreme
length in Marbary vs. hudson lst. Uranch
1877 aud in other cises: JUICE Story, rs we have
seen above. Adopted the same course aud the
custom Try line of practice was followed by Chief
Justice fancy ia the Dfed Scott case
Tint | am right in saying that the proposition
laid down by Judge Story, Which have incor-
poraIed into this lecture j. settled law. refer
YOU t. Norri, vs.. Newton. ), McLc,n Rep D 90
Judge Mclean there uses this language: by
the decI-ipn in the use of Prisg " Penn-yva-
MIA. the master has right 10 seze his slave in
any State where he may he :ouud Ii he can do so
without breach of the peace; AMI without any
exhibition of claim or authority. take him back
to the Site from whence he .tbsc IN lie % Aud
he saws that by that decision he Judge McLsan)
is "fuIly bound -
Ii such is the right of the master under the
Constitution, you IN ~ well ask. what need Of any
statutory fugitive slave law? If Il msn's prop
erty ssrays away from him. he does not ordinarily
need 4 special law to enable him, on finding il,
to take il back; nor does he it il Is stolen from
him. Then why does the master need such n
law to enable him TO reclaim his slave. who may
have run away or been stolen from him? II is
because the people in the States into which slaves
may escape, or be carrie by those who my en-
tice them away, will not let them be taken
back in obedience to the Constitution of the
country; but will, by violence and riotous pro-
ceedings, endetvor to prevent their return A
statute law is demanded. therefore, prescribing
and regulating the mode and manner in which
and designating the officers by which, the consti-
tutional provision shall be executed Such law
is likewise demanded as security to free ne
groes against being Kidnapped into slavery
The prOpriety and constitution ,iIv of such a
law, no inrst or man OF intelligence, who re
spected the constitution of his country and was
willing to conform 10 il. ever doubted. The ONLY
point Of difficulty has been, among those whose
opinions are entitled to respect. whether the fugi
tive slave law should he enacted 10y the State gov
eTnmenfs several;y. or by the Government of the
United States. But il il now settled beyond fur
ther controversy, that it is the right and duty OF
the Federal Government TO provide the ways and
means for the enforcement of this provision oil
the federal compIct, and the securing of the
rights of the people of the States under il: and
th.t the fugitive slave law last enacted bv Con-
eress. and now in force is constitutional in every
ptrtic1lar. See Prigg v. Pennsylvania, supra
Miller v. McQuesney, McLean's Req 46g
Norris V. Cracker, IL Howar's Rep. 42D; Able
man v. Booth, 81. ID. 506; Weisnerv Sloan, c
II
uiay, Also under their laws, punish the h ,rb ring
OF slaves Moore v. Illinois. ~ Howard IL Ii
will naturally occur tn your mind at this point
that it would be most injudicious act to repeal
the fugitive slave law. as its repeal would al
once remit the Sllveholders back To their individ
uairghIs Of executing the cons itu ipnsl provi-
sions, attended, it would be. by riots. and ex-
pose every citizen who ntcriere.l aud prevented
the taking mex of their slaves by them, 10 sui
A..
In conclusion. | am panied to be com ellel to
adj that the clause in the Constitution, which We
have been considering. has. of late years, beer
habiiually violated; disregaried nv the n ,rtherr
i States and people A portion of citizen:
have habitualiy libelled and vlli6ed the iustitu-
tons and public men of the Southern States
thereby. by their meldlesome interference. irri
Eating their feelings, aud disturbing their qaiet
| They have sent among them incendiary docu
ments, melting seition. They have stolen from
them their slaves, and have prevented or OBJ
strueted the return of such as escaped; they have
not sent back Onesimus; and, finally they have
I under John Brown, invade their territory, anC
sought to overturn their institutions by civil anc
scryile war. Had any treaty between this anC
any foreign government been half SO wantonl,
and frequently broken as has been our constitu
tiOnH compact with the South the civilized worlC
would prou,unce that governmentfhatd did not vim
dIcate her honor oy war. no other means OF redress
being left her. account of sueE breach of faith
as too puSIllsDmous 10 0e treated otherwise thar
with contempt But the pe ,eeful remedies at
/ fOrded by our constitution render a resort to wal
unnecessary and unin-tiiable. though they do no
forbid complaint Yet, if the South. under tles,
continual taunts aud constitutional wrongs dare
to hint that she may be compelled to attempt Il
Withdraw from the Uuion (which the North ha
viOlaied.) 20 preserve her institutions aud sci
respect, she is denoance a. disloya; but, let m'
ask, IL a wife should le,ve the house of her hus
bind. and sue FOR and obtain a divorce on ac-
count of his i'll Treatment who would in law b,