| OCR Text |
Show 25-l DESPOT!Sl\I by any reasons, but which, for all that, may be entirely g roundless a nd gratuitous, as we have already attern pled to show. Wholly independently, however, of the argument upon that point, or of the particular application of the act of 1850 to t he case of runaway slaves, two distinct sets of objections have been taken to the constitutionality of that act, besides many others to its arbitrary spiri t, and its g rossly evident disposilion (so ab~ndantly illustrated as well by several of its pro· visions as by many of the proceedings which have taken place under it) to sacrifice t he rights of p<•rsons claimed to the convenience and even to t he rascality of persons claimant. I. The ground is taken, in the first place, that this return of fugitives from labor is a matter which belongs, at least in its initiative, wholly and exclusively to the authorities and tribunals of the states, and with which Congress has no right to interfere, nor to authorize a ny body else to interfere, until the proceeding shall have rc•ulted in a suit cognizable by the Fed· cral tribuna ls. '!'he intention and effect of the clause in the Federal constitution respecting fugitives from labor seems to be, that no right to service under the laws of any state sha ll be defeated, notwithstanding any diJICrences of local law, by any escape into another state; but to the extent of recapturing such fugitivc,-and if the services to which he is bound be of such a nature that the exaction of them is not permitted under the laws of the state in which he is found, still, of holding him for a period sufficient for his removal,-that right shall be recoanized and enforced by the tribunals of the state in ~vhich the fugitive is found; t he procecding3 of such state tribunals of course being liable, should the procedure take the form of a judicial contest to be transferred to or reviewed by the Federal courts, under the general jurisdiction g iven to t hem in all cases arising under the Federal constitution and laws, there to be proceeded with according to the general methods prescribed in IN AMERICA. 255 the j udi ci~ry acts. 'l'o give thus to a South Caroli· man, for mstance, claiming service or labor from a fugitive found in lVIassachusctts as due to him u nder South Carolina law, precisely the same right and the sa~e. mean ~, neither more nor less, to reclaim that fug~hve, wluch a Massachusetts man has in lVIassac. bosetts in t he case of h ~s runaway ch ild or apprentiCe, would seem to be qmte as much as any reasonable slave-holder could ask; at all events quite as much as the Federal constitution ever intended to a llow. ~cc~rding to this view of the matter, no special l~glslatiOn, whether state or Federal, respecting fugit ives from one state into another, is necessary, nor even allowable. The constitution of the United States being the supreme law of the land, and recognized as such by all the State courts and authorities, its provisiOn respecting fugitives is quite sufficient to give, in each state of the Union, through the agency of the state tribunals and state authorities in the first place, or if they fail of t heir duty, t hen through the agency of the Federal courts, the same protection and the same justice alike to all claimants and to all fugitives, to whatsoever state they may belong, or upon the laws of whatsoever state their respective rights may be based. Nor is this view of the case, so reasonable and satisfactory in itself, and so free from the multifarious difficulties and objections to which any other intcrprel~ hon of the clause in question is exposed, • wantHig 111 support from the most respectable quarters. 'l'hat Congress has no power to legislate for t he return of fugitives from labor, and that the act of 1793 on that subject (and of course the act of 1850) is unconstitutional, was elaborately maintained by Chan~ ellor Walworth, of New York, by his opinion g i,·cn -m the New York Court of Errors in the case of Jack . • "If, as seems to be admitted, legislation is necessary to carry mto effect the obj ect of the constitution, what becomes of the ri;;ht whe':l thCl:e is no law on tho subject?" OJ?iniou of Judge ThompIIOU m Pngg v. PormsylDal~ia, 16 1Jotors 631. |
