| OCR Text |
Show 292 J)E S POTtSl\1 reeommcnded the decision of the court to Story. Not o nly did it grat ify his ul tra Fede~al id.cas, in which, though rai~ed to the bench a~ a JenNsontnn Derno<'rat, he fa r ontran those emi nent F£>deralist~, Ch ief Justices Mor:;hall and Ta ney, but it seemed to him, as he afterwards boasted in private co nve r~atio n , to strik e a deadly blow at the surrend er of fu g it ive s lave:;:, by relieving the states from all obligation to coOperate jn it. Of the four judges who went with Story on thiH point, t hree were from s lave-holding circuits; but ~~ those circuits were remote from the frontiN, they did not feel the immediate smart. e ither of having lost ~laves them:-;clvef-;1 or of sympathy with friend ~ and neighbors who had. Taney and Daniel were dillf>rently ~; ituatcd , and these two bordt>r judge:-, support ed by Thompson, whom the in st inct and habit of servitude naturally carried along with them, protested with all their might against the deci~ion of the majority. 'l'hey agreed, indeed, with Story and the otiJCri'\1-for Baldwin al~o went to this cxtcnt,-t hat · he states were prohibited from passing any ~peciall aws that might jn any way conflict with the most summary recovery of fugitive sla ves; but they in sisted ahso (sec Taney's opinion, p. 627,) that the co nstitution enjoined it as a duty, no less upon the states than upon Congress, "to protect and su pport the owner while cndPavoring to obtain the possession of his property." That is to tmy, while the states were prohibited by the Federal co nstitution from a ffording t he. least protection to tlwir own citizf'ns, se izPd by kidnappers under pretrnce of being fugitives from labor, at the same time they were bound to aftOrd all poss ible aid to slave-owners, even at the immincut ri sk of facilitating kidnappi1~ g ! Such is another of the ab!'urd con~rqu e n ces, of whJCh this ea8C is so full, to which fa be a~sumptions . inevitably lt·ad, in lf'gal no less. than in rnathen:'atical rt.aso ning. It were well that la\\•yer::; and JUd.ges wt•rc as SP n:;iblc as mnthemafif'ians to the Jogwal efl;:cts of a reductio ad absurdum. Baldwin, a ssenting to the constitutional right IN AMERICA, 293 mai~tained by all the j?dges except 1\'I cL can, of re? apllon ?nd remova l Withou t warrant, notwithstand~ ng spccml state laws to t he eontrary, concurred in the JUdgment of th ~ court because it was admitted that th? woman c~rn ed off waR Prigg's slave. He also ad mitted, lhat 1f any special legislation on the subject were needed,,Congress alone could so legislate. But he h~ld s.uch leg1slation unnecessary, and therefore unconstt~. utJonal, thus seeming to come up very nearly, if not qmte,-for we have no detailf'd statement of his views -to the doctrine maintained in this section. Baldwi~ ;vas a lawyer, a.nd a very able one; nor is his authorIty t? be set .aside on the ground of any a nti-slavery l eamn~s. H1s a ntecedents have been already alluded to, _as mdeed they were by himself, in his opinion dehvert-d only a year before, in the case alreadv mentioned of Graves v. Slaug!tter,-an opinion in~ which he went far beyond any of the court in maintaining that the Federal constitution recognizes slaves as property as m~ch as a bale of cotton ; and that, as such, gangs ot slaves might be driven to market through intervening free states. He had also on the same occasion, attacked, with no little acrim~ny the idea set up by l\1cLean, and seemingly countena;1ced by some of the other judges, that the constitution regards ~lav~s not as property, but only as persons, denouncing 1t as the first step in a career of doctrine certain to prove fatal to the whole slave-holding syHtem. McLean agreed with the other judge•, that the act of 1793 was constitutional, and that the states had \IO right to legis late specially on the subject of the surrender of fugitive slaves. But he differed from ~hem in maintaining, !st. That Congress had a right, m. certain cases, to impose duties on state oilicers and tnbunals, and that this matter of the surrender of fugitives from labor was one of those cases; and 2d. That the states, under their acknowledged police power, had a right to preserve their own peace, and to protect the rights of their citizens, b;v prohibiting 25' |
