OCR Text |
Show 290 DESPOTJS!\1 possession of his slave, or the immedia_te commat_zd of his services operatino- pro tanto as a d1schargP, IS. unconstitutioJ; al." VVI~nee it. would follow, that a Virginia slavP-holdf'r ha!!! lhc right., not only. to recapture his runaway slave in Ma~sachusetts, but, If ~le pJet~~es, then:• to beat, work, imprison, or starve hun, at his pleasure, short of immediate death, (even the statute against cruelty to animals being unconstitutional as to him); and, if the slave be a woman, of compclliiw iler to share his bPd as his concubine,-all of which are "incidf'nts" in Virginia to the right of slave-hold. ing ;-and to continue to enjoy these incidents for any period t.hat he may choose to remain in lVIassachusetts. Some such rights have been claimed, indeed, by some of the slave-holders as appertaining to them in the territories; but never yet, so far as I know, have any of them pretended, under any circumstances, to any tmch right.s within the limits of a free state. Even the claimants of fugitive slaves have been too modest and forbearing to attempt any thing of the sort, notwithstanding this high judicial warrant for doing so. But not content. with thu:s giving to the master of a fugitive slave, found within the limits of a free state, all the right,, including the right of recapture without warrant, which he would have had at homr, Story, with some other judges, (McLean now supplying the place of Baldwin, who dissented,) goes on to hold, not only to the right, but to the imperative duty, of Congress to reenforce th is constitution a I provision by speci~l legi~lation. The master" may not be able to Jay h1s hand upon the slave. He may not be able to enforce hi~ rights against persons who either secrete, or conceal, or withhold the slave. He may be restricted, by lo~al leg i~lation, as to the rnodes of proofs of his ownership, as to the courts in \vhich he shall sue, and a~ to the actions which he may bring, or the process he ~ay u~e to compel the delivery of the ~lave; 11-fhat 1s to say, he may be put \l(lOII precisely the same lercl as to his remedies with other claimants of property ?r personal rights, whether native or foreign. But thiS, IN Ai\IE:RICA. 291 according to the SuprC'n.le Court of lhe United States wo~ld be a grO:-"ti ~nd mtolerable violation of the e~ cul!~tr a.nd sa~r~d ~~~hts Sf'cured hy the con:-~titutionpto the.own:rs ot .fu~1t1vc slaveti; for the sustentation of ;vlucll ,r1~hts Jt. 1s. t!lc duty o.f Congretis to interfere, ~nU, ~mdtr lite JlUltc~al autlwnly vested in the general l?oveuwzent, io prov1dc, ai whatever ri ::;k to free cit. It:C ilti of uon·~!avt:-holding states, a swift and certain mcthod.of dchvery,such as will leave to fug itive sla ves no post;~ble cha nc·c of escape. 'l'hc constitutionality of the act of 1793 is thus placed by the Supreme Court of the United States upon the cxprrsti ground (i\lr. W<'bst.cr and other apologist• for the act of 1850 to the c~1!trary not.withstanding) that. the surrender of a fug1t1ve from labor is," in the strictest sense a cuntr~ve,:sy between the pa1·tin, and a case, under t1he constJl~tJon ~f t.h~ United States, within the express delegatwn of ;ru~tctal JJower, given by that instroment." A!:i to the obJect. lOll tim~ the justices of the peace and oth~~ state t:nagJstrates 111 whom the authority to grant Ct'rtlficates. IS conemrcntly vc:;tcd arc state officers, the court hastdy pass by t hat, '':ith the suggestion, that though not bound to eNcrcJ:o;e this jurisdiction, ~till tl~c.y may do so, as long as the stateti do not pro· l11b1t them. But soppo!:ie this assertion to bt' consist· ent (which it hardly seems to be) with the doctrine so peremptorily laid down in Marlin v. lluntcr's L essee or supposing this new doctrine to be the better law: which must be cste.emcd very doubtful, still it. does not tou?h the other and unanswerable objections of want of proper tenure and salary. ~c come now to another point of the case, in wh1cl~ there was less unanimity. Story, Wayne, McKmley, and Catron held-and on this point they were. a&'a1n supported by lVleLcan, thus sti ll making a maJOnty~f the court-that not only was it the duty as well a~ n ght of Congress to t'nforcc bv Jeoi;:;lation thesu~rendcr of fugitives from labor, but ihat ~he riaht to legtslatc on this snbject was vcstt>d cxclusively0 in Congress. It was this point doubtless that chielly |