National Republican., 1883-10-22

of Interpretation as that adopted in tho re-
cont decision on tho civil rights bill tho
fugitive slave law would have been declared
unconstitutional That law, like tho civil
rights act, was based on clause of tho con-
stituton which was prohibitory ON the states,
and contained no grant of power to congress.
But so sacred was then deemed the right of
ono man to own another that tho United
States supreme court, in Prigg VS.. Tho State of
Pennsylvania, decided that constitutional
clause merely prohibiting n state from free
ing slave escaping from another state, and
declaring that the slave should DO surron-
dercd up, on claim of his master, gave ample
power TO congress to enact u law for tho appre-
hension and return of the fugitive. The
opinion of tho court was rendered by Chief
Justice Story, and he found that prohibition
upon the states was u full grant Of power to
congress- Hero are his words
If, indeed, tho constitution guarantees the right,
and If 1t requires the delivery upon the claim of
the owner las Canuot well be doubted) the natural
Inference certainly is that the national government
is clothed with the appropriate authority and
functions 10 enforce 4. The fundamental principle
applicable to all cases Of this sort would seem to
BE- that where the end Is required the means are gtven
and where the duty is onjoined the ability to per-
form it Is contemplated 20 exist on the part of the
iunctionariCs TO whom IL Is iutrustcd The clause
is found In the national constitution, and not in
that OF any state. 1t docs not point out any state
functiOnaries or any state action TO carry Its pro-
visions into effect. On the contrary, the natural
aud necessary conclusion Is that the national gov
ernment Is bound, through its own proper depart
mcnts-lcgislativc judicial, and eXecuuye-to
carry into effect all the rights and duties imposed
by the constitution.
1t will probably be found, when we look TO the
character Of the constitution itself-the objects
which it seeks TO attain, the power which 1t en-
ploys, the duties which 1t euioins and the rights
which it secures, as well as to the known historl-
cal facts that many of its provisions were matters
OF compromise of opposing interests and opinions
thatno uniform rule of Interpretation can be ap-
Piled which may not allow, even ifit does not
positively demand, many notifications in its ap.
plicaion TO particular clauses Perhaps the safest
re Of Interpretation after all will be found to be to
look to the nature and object of the particular
powers duties rights with all the light aud aid of
contemporary hjStOrN and to give to the words of
each just such operation and force, consistent with
their legitimate meaning, as may fairly secure and
attain the ends proposed
Suppose our present supreme court, in de-
termining the validity of the civil rights bill,
had followed the above rule of interpreta-
tion. Can any reasonable mind doubt that
they would have been thereby forced to con-
"lf, indeed, the constitution guarantees the
right" Well, the right of a master to have
his slave surrendered to him never was any
more clearly guaranteed than is the present
right of citizen to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens "Where the end is
required the means arc given" A short cut,
that, for slave master. Why not for free
man?
And Chief Justice Story said the principle
was fundamental. "All rights guaranteed
by tho constitution "tho national gov
ernment is bound, through its own proper
departmental Legislative, judicial, and execu-
tive-to carry into effect" And so the fugitive
slave was hunted down by United States
marshal, armed with process issued by n
United States court, under United States
law based upon a clause in the United States
constitution prohibitory upon and directed to
the states only.
But when the slave, transferred to free
man, asks to be protected from the hatred of
those who resisted his emancipation, and
points to an act of congress passed for his
benefit, he finds rule of Interpretation
exactly the opposite to that adopted in aid of
his capture and return when u fugitive No
contemporary history" is allowed to eight
or aid " the court in securing the ends pro-
posed" Ho is remanded to tho cold and
bloodloss words of the constitution, and told
that, whatever the trainers of the four
teonth amendment meant, only what
they said can bo considered. We
are not now discussing which rule of in
depreciation is right. We are only showing
tho contradiction in them. Whether rwles Of
Interpretation, rs we'll as their application, en-
ter into the doctrine of stare dccisis, we have
not the skill to decide; but we do know that
it is hard to be told that tho letter of the con-
stitution must govern when liberty is thereby
killed, while the spirit OF the instrument
could be invoked to contradict tho letter
when thereby slavery was made alive. The
theme grows upon us as we writc, and space
will not admit of lengthy dissertations. We
will at another time produce tho argument OF
the late Justice Nelson, where he justified
the fugitive slave act, on the ground that the
constitutional provision on which it rested
was made in express terms to guard against
a possible act of Injustice by the state authori.
ties" And for what was tho fourteenth
amendment made, but for the very same rea.
son?
bourbon Outrage In Virginia.
We alluded some days since to the fact tha
the intolerance of the bourbon funders o
Jetersville, Va, had been exhibited in re
fusal to lease a room to the United States TO
! n nostnffico hecauso tho nnstmaster was of IN,