The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1871-04-14

rights, the Secti0n quoted does not az
piy. 1t is said that the States are nc
doing the objectionable acts, This al
gument is more specious than rea
Constitutions and laws are made 10
practical operation and effect. The
have certain ends to accomplish an
must be understood as tending to &C
complish the object sought. What prac
! teal security would this provision Civ
If it could do no more than to abrogat
and nuliify the overt acts and legisIa
ton ola Slater If q State has no Law
upon its statute-book obnoxious to oh
lection under the article referred to, bu
nevertheless permits the rights of citi
zens to be Systematically trampele,
upon without color of law, of wha
avail is the constitution to the citi
zens?
The argument leads to the deduction
that While the first section ofthe amend
ment prohibits all deprivation of right
by means of State laws, yet all right
may be subverted and denied, withou
color of law, and the Federal Govern
mcnt have no power to interfere. 81
you have to do, therefore, under THU
view, to drive every obnoxious mat
from a State, or STAY him with impuni
ty, is to have the law all right ON tht
statute-book, but quietly permit rapint
and violence to take their way, without
hindrance of local authorities. Such &
position, Mr.. Speaker, defeats itself by
its own absurdies. The rights and priv
ileges of citizens are not only not to be
denied by State but they are not TO bG
deprived of them.
Again, it is provided that Congress
shall have power to enforce the article
by appropriate legislation. But if this
section is nothing more than mega
ton, veto of State acts, where is the
room for legislation There would be
none. The provision would exhaust it.
self by its prohibition and leave moth
ing for active legislation. Nothing can
well be more evident than that, taking
the first and fifth sections together, the
intention was to enable Congress, by
Federal legislation and by the proper
power of the government, to secure to
citizens the actual enjoyment of the
rights and privileges guaranteed.
But the case is not without Just ana
logies in legislation and adjudications,
and though some of them have been al
ready referred to in this discussion, the
of the subject will justify a
further consideration, even at the eX-
pense of some Federation. The second
section of article four of the Constitu-
ton provides that
"a person charged in auy State with trea-
son, felony, or other crime who shall flee
from justice and be found in any other State,
shall, on demand of the executive authority
OF the State from which he fed. be delivered
mp, TO be removed to the State having jurisdic-
tion of thecrime."
Here is provision imposing duty
and creating a right respecting the ar
rest of offenders, as between different
States. No express authority is given
Congress to interfere. 1t is provided
that on demand by one State the other
shall deliver up the offender. Here,
therefore. as well as under the four
teenth amendment, it might be claimed
that the Constitution exhausted itself
in imposing the duty upon the State,
and that congressional legislation could
not aid the Constitution. But, in fact,
ever since 1913 We have had upon the
law for the execution of
this provision and providing the mode
and manner of procedure under it, and
in 1912 Mr.. Justice Story said its valid
ity had never been questioned.
Again, the second section of the fourth
article of the Constitution further pro-
Vides that
N o person Deid 10 service or label IN one
State under the laws thereof, escaping into
another, shall, in consequence of any law OF
regulation therein, be discharged from such
service or labor, hut shall be delivered up on
claim OF the party to whom such service or In
Dor may be due"
The similarity in expression of this
section to the one quoted in the four
teenIh amendment is so apparent that
its construction must lead to just I'M
of the latter. Both impose
a prohibition upon State authority, both
affirm right under Federal authority.
Under the second section of the fourth
article statute was enacted in 1893
providing for the capture and surrender
of fugitive slaves, and in the case of
Prigg as. Pennsy ivania the law and the
provision of the Constitution came I'M
der consideration in the Supreme Court
of the United States in 1912.
In giving his opinion in the case, Mr..
Justice Story uses the following Ian
guage in reference to the fugitive slave
law of 1894, as affected by the Gonstit4=
ton. He saxs:
But il has been argued that the act of Con-
gress is unconstitutional, because IL does not
fall within the scope of any of the enumerat-
Ell powers OF legislation conhded to that body,
and therefore it is void. Stripped OF its arti-
fciai and technical structure the argument
comes to this, that although rights are exclu-
sively secured by. or duties are exclusively
imposed upon, the national Government, yet,
unless the power to enforce these rights or TO
execute these duties can be found among the
express powers Of legislation enumerated in
The Constitution, they remain without any
means Of giving them effect by any act of Con-
gress; and they must operate solely prOprto
rig0re, however defective may be either Oper-
alton; nay, even although in practical sense
they may become q nullity from the want of
DFOnPr rGfne1V To RnfOFIp them TO nFDNlde
against their violation.
"If this be the true Interpretation Of the
Constitution, 1t must, in a great measure, fail
10 attain many of its ayowed and positive OBJ
ects as a security OF rights and recognition
IF duties. Such limited construction of the
Constitution has never yet been adopted AZ
correct, either in theory or practice. No one
has ever supposed that Congress could constI-
hy its legislation exercise powers
Or enact laws beyond the powers delegated to
{ by the Constitution; but it has, on various
occasions, exercised powers which were nee
essary and proper as means to carry into effect
rights expressly given and duties expressly
eDjoined thereby. The end being required, il
has been deemed just and necessary implica.
lion that the Means TO accomplish 1t are given
also; OF, in otner words, that the power flows
rs a necessary means to accomplish the end"
Such, sir, was the language of the
great jurist, speaking for the court. II
follows from the doctrine of that case,
and from the uniform decisions of the
same court, that where rights are ex-
pressly enjoined thereby, the power of
Congress necessarily attaches TO enforce
such rights and duties by appropriate
legislation.
In the same case, Mr.. Justice Mclean,
IN the course of his opinion, speaking
Of the duty of State to perform the
acts required by the Constitution, said
This power may be resisted by State, and
there Is no means OF coercing il. In this view
The power may be considered an important
Dne. So the supreme court of q State may re-
fuSe to certify its record on a writ of error to
The Supreme Court of the Union, under the
twenty fifth section Of the judiciary act. But
State fuuctionary should not be anticipated;
and IL made, the Federal Government may
rely upon its own agency in giving effect TO
the laws.'
Here, therefore, the doctrine is square,
ly enunciated by one of the purest and
ablest of the eminent jurists that have
our Supreme bench that where
q State refuses to comply with the req
uisitions and demands of the supreme
law the Federal Government may give
effect to its Constitution and laws
through its own agency. This doctrine
Is ample for the exigeucies of the pres
ent bill.a The decision of the Supreme
Court in this case has been followed in
very numerous cases, and the doctrine
must be considered settled, if any thing
can be settled by adjudication.
If such was the law as announced by
the tribunal of last resort in reference
to the rendition of fugitive slaves, shall
a less liberal construction be allowed in
al