The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-09-28

That Kimpton was wanted us d Witness and
not as transgressor OF the law, was
correct. still his refusal to deliver him up
ID utterly indefensible Kimpton was form
ally charged with q crime and demanded as
fugitive from justice, and that was oil thu
Gov. Rice had any right to consider. What
disposition South Carolina may make Of her
criminals Is no concern of his II she chooses
to make State witnesses of them, 1t Is nc
more than what other States do every day
and he has not O word to soy about it. The
| constitution provides that "full faith and
credit shall be given in each State to the
public acts, records and judicial proceedings
Of every other State" The Governor Of one
State cannot assume that such records and
mandates OF another State as may be issued to
him under the constitution are illegal and I'M
authorized. He is specially and peremptorily
directed to assume just the contrary. 1t Is
not for the Governor of Massachusetts to
pass upon the guilt or innocence OF q person
who has been duly indicted in South Caro-
lima, and for whom a requisition has been for
mally made Gov. Rices attitude Ia simply
absurd, and his justification Is not in the law,
but his excuse is in active political sympathy
intent of the law he is parhceps c,imi3sis with
Kimpton-an accessory after the fact-in that
he is aiding him to escape from justice. So
much for Rice-but now we have word for
Gov. Hampton. In his letter to Gov. Rice he
says:
/ regret that the chief executive Of the
great State Of Massachusetts should have
committed SO fragrant q violation Of the su-
preme law Of the 1and-a violation irrepara-
BILE in Its nature, as the State suffering there
by has no possible redress.
This is a postulate with which we cannot
agree. Gov. Hampton has not exhausted
even under the EXTREMIST State rights yiew
all of the remedies at his command, nor is
the State of South Carolina without recourse
In this matter, nor is he destitute of all "pos-
sible redress" Whether we regard the Fed
eral constitution as ON instrument deriving
Its authority directly from the people, or as
a compact between the States, there Is not
one single power delegated by it to the United
States In clearer. more emphatic or less
equivocal language than that of directing and
enforcing the comfy between the States.
This point, though not directly passed upon,
was asserted In the bred Scott decision In a
way and by an implication that has not
been destroyed by the late amendments and
which can never be impugned. The practical
effect of that decision was to enforce exactly
the same provision in regard to fugitive
slaves which Gov. Hampton has invoked In
regard to fugitiyes from justice In this case
the power Of the Federal government to en-
force the comfy of the States. In enforcing
the former provision the court left the plain
inference that the enforcement of the latter
was also q part Of the Federal power.
The bred Scott case, however, went
off on an exception which can have
no bearing in this case. The en-
forcement of the comfy between the States
Is clearly delegated to the United States, and
there can be no doubt Of the jurisdiction of
the Federal courts In an application on the
part of Gov. Hampton for an enforcement of
the right Of South Carolina to bring to trial
fugitive from her justice, who may have
sought refuge in another State, whose Gov
ernor refuses to deliver him up on the proper
demand. When Gov Hampton has resorted
to such q proceeding he may have exhausted
his remedes-but not before