Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1864-03-19


repeal Of these laws by Congress is not to
be accompanied or followed by State laws
or State action, in aid Of the master, but
by measures and action Of an exactly op.
po5te character. The claimant is to en-
counter opposition under personal liberty |
laws of the States aud other devices Of
hostile sentiment, and is to receive no aid |
whatever irom State officials in the viudio-
ntion Of his right. Wha. is proposed and :
intended by the advocates of repeal is not
a new aud more appropriate remedy for
constitutional right, the substitution of
State for federal action, but the defeat
and virtual destruction Of the righ. itself,
by withholding all government aid what.
soever from the claimant pursuing it.
But the questioned the power of Con-
gress to enact fugitive laws has been most
fully determined in favor of he power by
the appropriate constitutional tribunal.
In the case Of Psigg vs. gHe Common
aceaM Of Pennsylvania, l6 Peters Re.
ports, p. SAB, the Supreme Court decided
that "The act Of 12th of FEBRUARY, 1893,
relative to fugitive slaves is clearly consi.
tutional in all las leading provisions, and,
indeed, with the exception of that par.
which coniers authority upon State magis-
trates, i. free from reasonable doubt or
difficulty" And Judge Mclean declared
in the same case that Congress have leg.
islased on the constitutional power, and
have directed tie mode in which it shall
bo executed. The act OF 1893, it is ad-
mitted coyers the whole ground, and that
it is constitutional there seems to be no rea-
son tc doubt. .'-(Ib., 6G9.)
In the case of Ablemaa vs.. Booth, 81
Ho'0ardS Reports, p. 526, the Supreme
,Cour: say, speaking of the act of 1850 -
"Iu the judgment of this court the act of
Co pgress commonly called the fugitive
slave law, is, in all of its provisions, fully
authorized by the Constitution Of the
United States"
These decisl ons would solidIy establish
the doctrine already maintained by us up-
on the question ofpower if authority were
needed to support it.
The Constitution having declared the
right Of reclamation of tugitives from jus
tice and labor, power is necessarily im-
piled in the government OF the United
States for ita execution. 1t is q reasona.
bic and necessary power, resting upon the
express provision declaring tbs right in
question. And from the ioanL alton Of the
government tho power has been exercised
without any hostile decision, from suy tri.
buual or authority entitled to pronounce
conclusivoly upon it il fact, there has
been ess difference Of opinion upon this
subject than upon almost any other impor-
tant provision of the Constitution which
has been subjected to debate.
1t is true that while tho majority Of the
Supreme Court held, upon one occasion
that this power was exclusively in the
United States the minority held that il
was o concurrent power, and might be ex.
ercised by the States in cid Of tie claim
ant 5 right, in the absence of Congressional
action. But it is quite immaterial which
of these views bo accepted, SO far as our
present purpose is concerned. Ifthe pow
Ell exist in either from in the United States
the right of Congress TO pass proper laws
pursuant to it is indisputable for, by the
concluding clause Of the eighth section o.
the first article of the Constitution. Soon
gress is authorized to make all laws whicl
Shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers those
enumerated expressly and all other pow
ers vested by this Constitution in the gov
ernment of the United States,or in any de.
partmont or eficer thereof"
Having nov stated tao case upon the
question of poEer, wo proceed to submit
oh prti G
contained in the report of tho majority and
and will then state some general consider
atious which stand opposed &c the repeal
of the fugitive acts:
1. The majority say, in speaking CT the
delivery of the fugitive, Ltrestores to the
claimant the complete control the per-
son of the victim, so that he may be con-
yeyed to any part of the country where il
is possible to hold slave, or he may bt
sold on the way. From these circum
stances it is evident tha. the proceedings
cannot be regarded, in uny just sense, as
preliminary or auxiliary to some future
formal trial. as in the case of'the surren-
der of fugitive from justice, but as ccm
plete in themselves, final and conlusive."
The answer to this IL furnished by the
laws themselves. The act OF 1893, sec
ton 3, says: at shall be the duty Of sucl
judge, or magistrate, to give certificate
to such claimant, his agent or attorney
which shall be sufficient warrant for re
moving the said fugitive from labor TO M
Slae or Territory rom a0hicA he or she .Eed
The act of 1850 provides. in section 4
that the commissioners who hear fugitive
cases "shall grant certificates to suot
claimants upon satisfactory proof being
made, with authority to take and remove
Ssch fugltives from service or labor, under
the restrictions herein contained, 10 h
State or Territory from which such person
may haze escaped or bed."-(Sse als(
section e.
These citations constitute sufficient ro
ply, without more, to the statement ofth'
majority That statement Is obviously un
; founded
?. The majority say "It is because
| ~ tbo v;th u.h;oh "a rho ali nm,