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


Of special provision Of the Constitution
Of the United States, and, instead uf in-
volving or requiring suit At law, 10 the
personal assertion Of claim by an indi'
yidual in his own right
Judge Mclean says u6 Peters, p. 667) |
"both the Constitution aud the act of 1898
require tho fugitive from labor TO be de-
livered up OH claim being made by the
party, or his agent, to whom the service is
due. Not that suit should be regularly
instituted. The proceeding authorized by
the law is summary and informal" The
objectors to our legislation upon the sub
ject Of fugitives would be the last men in
the world to admit that, in the absence Of
the constitutional provision in question,
claimant could enforce bis claim to- the
possession of his servant in State to
which the servant had fed, because the
common law there existed.
4. The majority mention "that, accor.
ding to the census, Hess than ono thousand
slaves escaped during the year ending
Juns l, l660.,' We are not informed as
to the accuracy of the census upon this
subject but, assuming its correctness, we
have to remark that the number of fugi-
tives who may escape when the fugitive
acts are in existence does not measure the
utility of the laws. Because the loss was
small, compared to the whole number of
slaves in the country, it does not follow
that these laws were unnecessary or inop'
erative. Their value does not consist so
much in returning fugitives who may es-
cape as in detcrring white men from as
sisting them to escape. Therefors,i. does
not follow from what is stated by the ma
jority that these laws should be repealed
upon the ground of inutility,
| o. The majority quote declarations Of
Oliver Ellsworth, Elbridge Gerry, and
Roger Sherman, hostile to slavery, and
argue therefCom that the constitutional
clause relating to persons escaping from
service and labor did not relate to slaves
because those statesmen, as members oil
the convention, would not have assented to
provision which included slaves. We
content ourselves with stating, in reply,
that all those distinguished men were mem
bers of Congress in 1893, and supPoTted
tie fugitive &aVe act Of that gear!
10. The majority mako the extraordi-
nary statement, that while Mr.. Webster
supported the fugitive act of 1850, $50
far as his personal authority could go he
condemned it as unconstitutional :" and a
citation is given to support that statement
and citations follow FROM Judge Butler and
Mr. Mason, to show that they coucurred
in his opinion. What was said by Mr..
Webster was in substance this, that in biz
opinion it was duty of tho States &c de.
liver up fugtives but there was not the
slightest lntmaton by him or the other:
named, that the States possessed the &c
elusive power to legislato upon the sub
ject. They held that duty was imposed
upon the States, but they did not deny The
power of Congress, which is the point iu
question. Mr.. Butler, the chairman of tho
Judiciary Committee, in speech delivered
in the Senate on the 10Th OF April, 1850
insisted that the power was concurrent
and said, Gin the position I have taken
stand sustained by Chief Justice Taney
and tho justices alluded, TO, lin tue Prig!
case as well as by the opinieus Of til,
distinguished gentleman, lately membc
; of this body, and now Secretary Of State,
And again, after quoting from an opriol
Of Judge fancy ,maintaininSthe doctrine 0
a concurrent power in the federal and Sletc
governments upon this subject, he said
"there is the view of tie chief justice en-
tirely in accordance with the ono utteret
the other day by the gentleman Mr.. Web
ster lately representing Massachusetts, il
this body" An illustration OF Mr.. But
ler's view is furnished by the laws of Con
gress on the subject Of returning fugtive
from justice, 1t is the duty of the State
to which criminals fee to return them, bu
the proceeding for their return is regulated
by act of Congress
Let it be remembered that whether tn
power in question be concurrent, or eIis
exclusively in the United States as held b.
a majority OF the Judges of the Suprem
Court, is of no consequence in an investi
: CATION into the validity Of the fugitive ssy
laws. We may add, that in case of
concurrent power, so far as it is exercised
by the federal government, State action i
preclueed. For the laws Of the Unite,
|
IL, We regret to perceive in the ma
jority report an appeal to prejudice, in th
reference made to tue authors OF the act Q
1850. 1t is said the bill was reported t
the Senate by Mr.. Butler, Of South Care
lima, and the statement is strictly true =
But any good reason for now stating tina
fact for public contemplation is not mani
fest. Senator Butler (now dead was i
1850 chairman of the Judiciary Commit
tee Of the Senate, and to that oommitte
properly belonged the consideration o sue
Il bill. That he should report it to tn
Senate vas both natural aud proper. No
does the fact that the bill was amended
upon motion OF one Of the senators fron
Virginia (since engaged in revolt,1 deserv
the prominence given.is by the majority
His subsequent misconduct can give n
odious character to tho enactment in quos
ton, unless we accept a principle Of mer
prejudice or an.ipathy as oUr standard c
- =.