The Liberator from Boston, Massachusetts • 1

4 4 i $dJ jtf jsrfi 7 qn allsuch'Bubjects isseci i The defendant wai attorney the adipty 1 AianHlAa 41 MSJBenjrr 'Butler (thtreerri iq United 'StateSjanaJohffCSpencsrrWhiZwerolsPjjluhaswtt the commitfee pf fevkidb certainly entitle i respecf1rireri jf they Ahd ui ahy thing liW fcliwMs A for (lb Tb mJ 3" a gj 17' If th Suui aibef lM: nJ 5iSi I 1 HI sfi i A a '4 4 1 I temItJ would be useless nere io uihuu lits of trial by jury It is justly dear not only to I the citizens of American people who have always'guarded itjrith a solicitude which is the best evidence of their es nr fiathprfl broushtrit with wmawuiH5'nuiuintvii them from England as one of the free elements of her one which had oeen the safeguard Of all the rest and the renewed security of which a jAvnr1n1fin PVPTV OHP people were ever whirh in times ni hnofl rnnrpfismnM i of violence and danger were thA'itu The vpi of the colohy of New Plymouth (1623) was a a i 1 1 a a a BJI CriuIUlaJJ lavlOj aau uiov and debts betwdene man and man llClO H'krt thiwrl etfrtinn jp VLrlUmjfyiA llu Yw a when a person held to labor in' any of theUnited States orin either of the territories northwest or south' of Jhe river Ohio under the laws' thereof shall encode into any other ofthe saidstates orter ritories'tne person to whom such labor'or norvice ho riitfo tile uffpnrnr nirori lev id ncicur wi nr nrrest such fuiritive from labor VMk aw waaAw 77 and to take him or her before any judge of the cir i it T7 Ctalftfl I cuit or diatnci courts oi ue uimv fo I av Kntnrr within 1 lift state I VI MJK to 4 I a AAmnrofn earid'pi or ma ai kav rmiA uml silver com aAender pass 2L rcsu passed through the legislati receiving from wem uw muic nvrw I shall proprit toe or Mho writ of on But in tlie Senate all Ahe proytsmna 'r subject were stricken out and the single serted instead as if for the very ing the revival of the Writ at common 2 writ de homine replegiandtr is abd whed The amendment was concurred in by resentatives without question and thus I word of debete was blotted from outlaws tho oply remedv bv which one of the dearest rights of a cit Rnhrniinn io a buu izen scaureo io ninvw ik vJsiDt I iiiu wvu vii son arrested as a fugitive slave beforeO after the certificate prescribed by the law of Congress is given try liis right to liberty in this Commpnwealtlr by a collateral process as the writ of habeas xor 4 pus (or if the bill recommended by the Committee should pass) by the writ of personal replevin? Or Ion the other hand is the process under the act ol I Congress exclusive in its character and the cert11' cate granted unaer coiiciubivu the rights ofthe parties? These questions demand a farther consideretlon7 both of the constitutionality find effect of the act or if it be unconstitutional ttien cieanyj uy of the Commonwealth on this subject not contrary to its other obligations will be valid and even if the act be constitutional still it depends upon other questions whether a party arrested under it xhnll or shall not be at liberty to try the question wheth er he be in truth a slave by some collateral process r1 tn ha a matter oi national rciiuiauuii 1 if mghtnotbe thismadnd that 4 lI nn lltlllAU 1 0 fl 1 1 I i I I jUt inerstand the lUan elute uuuiuiiijt nvpyw A a question it necessary to consider particularly the provisions of the constitution and the ajv of Con gress upon this subject in connexion The last paragraph of Artiv 2 of the constitution is in these words person held to service in one' State under the laws thereof escaping into another shall in consequence of any latvor regula tion therein be discharged from such service or la bor but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be 'I his provision was unanimously adopted in ihe conven htfli fnrmori'vrip rnnsrnui ion anu ib uut the many concessions which were made to the de mnnrl nf thn Srnifh and although it imposed a dqty Ki upon Massachusetts in derogation of her common 4 engrafting a trial oy jury on scribed by "Congress or no principle is better settled or" wore uiuifmwmy state legislature can in any manner control or inter fere with the prodess of the courts of the United States or their rules and' forms of proceed ing undei the laws "bf Congress (Wayman Suuthard10 Wheaton US Halated I 015 KX? 3 Cbm 1 Com 094 and al Haughton 9 329) The Corrimittee are therefore of opinion that it Lint within tho nnthoritv of the Legislature to mod 1 ify the1 proceedings' under the act of Congress I a a 1 1 eAmo supposing tor tne present umu iu iv 1 puposeo) so as to add to them specifically a tnai oy lUrv otner quesuons wwcvvw iJ i i io fi Itorrnn tn I HiU BDI rr 1 4 spirituous hqobrs contrary the provisions of tha nulhorize the state courts to lake jurisdiction of offences' prosecuted underwit The court ddcidbd that 'Congress could pot invest them with such a jurisdittion anfll they? dismissed the cause The case of Ey Connt 239 fyah action brought' bn'a statute law of the limited Elates to recover damages which the plaintiit as owner of a hnd ustained iby tljB dser lion 'of the defendant This i act also in conferred jurisdiction of the subject upon the satc courts 'but the supreme court 'cf Cnnecticutoc 'hnidimr that can dot vest any portion of the judicial power ofthc Vhitcd States except iff a court ordained and xs tablislied bv itself and that the state courts ar rot ordairied nor established by Congress xnd are aot amenable to tlintbody a further discussion' of these questions the Committee refer to Hdustdri Moore 622 625 Const Law 8 lu Com 395 405 United States Bailey 9 Peters 328 '2 Jt is Admitted in'the dircussionof these questions tlikf there ofzcases where the courts of the: United Suites andif the several States may rightfully exercise concurrent junsdic Uorft'but this does not within either of these classes Itiis enough 'perhaps to say upon tbis point that no suclspowbr can bo communicated by Congress to a tribunal by the State Which hhd not jurisdiction upon the subject matter previous to the constitution arid which has not tnWan inherent pbweffedequate to the performance of the duty enjoined upon it and in ino mstonqe can it be exercised in violation of state obligations (See 3 Com' abd Com vbivpra i Li A ho I'nmnuim i no nAWPrniiPiiiiiLCu avr cated to magistrates by the law of the tU States a no vo upon 'the subject ot'lugitivc marked that it wants for its exercise every ORC oi these requisites 'The subject matter is one exclu sively out of he constitution and laws ot the United States Nd state 'courts had anyjuns diction in this form of theEsubject (previous to the viav Tm vaaAKav RnvjsdcQUEitQwhurnt VUU9UlUllVi4va jurisdiction but their whole' power over the subject 4 11 ki rlerived from the act OI II II exiawsai Congress and it might be addedptit were nec essary the exercise of such a power be naninst the state obligations of Magistrate imM as 12 AnnAinOA hVlzOn ion ef obligation ouglit notthe principle which at tiie bottom oi these provisions of our fundamen tal law to be Us dear to usxa to our fathers Ano is it not clearly applicable to this subject i The committee in reporting the accompanying bill restoring the writ thus unceremoniously abo1 ished substantially in the form recommended by the comihissionerA by no means suppose that rt will supersede the writ of habtat corpus This last named remedy has in tlie investigation ofqlic6lorisj of there law or requiring imhwdiatq action spply obvious' advantages that it will: never! be throw into disuse and with our present judiciary it in undoubtedly' be wisely in nd purely administered But it is unsuited im its forms to the trial of facts and the decisions under it nre always by the court and generally by1 single judge It lacks thegrcat principle the Committee have endeavored to illustrate and which seems to require a concur rent remedy giving to the paity atrjal jr jiiryal his election i r1 Thus fafc your Committcp proceeded? without hesitation But the petitions prcsentisubjects of vastly greater difficulty Themoder qfejivering up fugitive slaves is made or at any rate is attempt tl in'hn a matter oi national regulation An the defendant on a nep Randolph The defencewMhat KanooiPff that heither pin: out igressto pass anyjaw upori the sub id that the two opinion in Penn aoend oni tna jucie rreat orlndales full of parties and Mtuiea wuc ii tkir Uuai inieresui it ana aowmuj mhwwmw the South the abolitionists were strong active tinpoin 7" promising their support was en to enrereo the many insw i ji a minute iJnnnf the Cdytho votes of those who wkhed us we couM jogic $oUjd otherwise satisfy he obligation the iL WY Mi st jwjansl I n'MMAoJo ms Ta rfltl iff) 11 Kit tuft SUCal iMldepCM UDQOUW wwwviw wv iconilliuiionj IRJW WHV the werould only depend upon ourselves courte jg required by Jts intection nd He left it to the peopleol the South to determine the wb that knew the extreme jealousy of freedomv'time and mode of action on this momentous aubjee but chBraleriltic of the limes can be lt was bis opinion that to be successful ft murt Lieve tjal 0ie founders of our constitution intended i with Ii and loud cheering and his concluding words of dollars and cents de on that topic pronounced with deep emotion that relation to the alightestmisdsmeajwrs and to a mustbe annexed to the Unionl were answered ny iVoB tbc great question of personal liberty tnai? universal burst ot applause that showed now I would yield it as a right to every man lOfftne glowine was the sy mpathy oi the people of Booth Car 1 'ttsftn of hi title "to or horse ano I VX I 1 1 wim ue nereesei mm kmiv it rtn cl arlyth vital importance to the South of we annexa i faculties in one tion after afew other remarks concluded antid I of ft td4 RMVtflV VMvfM MIHbImA lAAM '1 Is5U 1 IM 'Js from £ress nayrom it Wnat the 1 MVS 1 'I'nca cnrniiii sei Litn cb a asa ed through the legislative coramiiivv bwwcw thij que6tion deceiving from them tho more popular ir rnieviiia i under this 7' ConshMiont'ihe laws Slatesand treaties' made ha' clftfpn 1 a UZr IKcsu ciauocp uic 7' MA State land although the principle which they ducedfrom them was nt first doubled it is now that where verte ibnstitutioni I SortqTby a authority non must ptap outi6 We refer to afew ofthe cases irithb state courts prohibit A United States mid first to uponhe author ''1'Msa nn tviftv i of gve inex people jrf terms iurisdictiontothe sthte courts of tne lout an express gruv he in VirPinia de I which suenrauues sum of these proposition js supponeq oy has any foundatiou which ydurCommittee can i eec ineason There ia no case id the knowledge qf the Committee that gives toithec supposition or where tne power 'is r' 7 RIDA YjrkPlU Is gSg a1 supreme courl oLAne vnueu lale jurisdiction in all questions qfIawi or eq 1 inr tnn vorv ouruusc: qn aivsuqir buujvcu i of making them the peculiar as tney nav been the vigilant guardians against any constitu tional infringements by the States 7 hSh at is also whprq4 certain duties ar enjoined uponthe authorities or people of the btates si nus oil faith and credit shaikh? gweb in each State to the public acts records and judi cial proceedings of evcryi other Statetj Doe this provision itself invest Congress ithtba author ity to enact how it Shull be' carried oqtand pre scribe tfie'manner in hidbnhese acts tecoyds andu proceedings be iverlhea I veriaimy nm vr else where was the necessity otgivmgl this power by express viz Congress rtay py eral la Wsi prescribe the manner in which such acts reebrds and Bhftlhbe proved and the effect It couldixinly have been because Congress without this express grant frould have had no such power 5 So with other subjects vvhere authority is nn'words given to Congrew hch in other parts of the instrument i demqd to the States or upon subjects in Relation toi which duties are prescribed to the States7 ri 7 if the Committee have been right thus far it roi also no authority is given jo iipon' thi subject' by virtue of clause of art i 9 which provide thKCongresa may all lawsrrwhich shall be necessary and proper for carrying into effect thepres' and enumerated) powers and all other pow ers vested 'by this constitution in the government ofthe United States or in any department or office thereof because it is not among the enumerated subjects in the previous part Of the section and no power in' relation to the matter' any where in the constitution vested in 'the governinent of the United States or in any department 5f 7No general authority upon tne subject of sla very or upon a subject wjiich would drawthisaf ta KJ an incident i any here to A en eral government: Th'8 clauee aa ontitution by the learned commentator upon (Mr Justice Story) is nothing more than declare lory of a trutli which would otherwise jhave result ed by necessary and unavoidable implication The plain import of the clause is (3 taries 113 14J that Congress shall hayq all thein cidental and instrumental powers necessary and proper to carry into (effect its express powers Ut neither enlarges anjr power nor is it a grant of Whenever therefore a question arises eopcroing the constitutionality of a particular power the nr LikArelllA it be not expressed the nXt inquiry i er it is properly an incident to an express power nd necessary execution if be exercised by CongressvJf it not Congress cannot exercise iti? Both tnesequv application to the case undet consideration jnnust be answered in the negative No one will eontenq that the power is expressly granted and what pow er is expressly granted ofwhicb this yould be a ne cessary or proper inStrusient Butitmay be said that some means are necessary to enforce the duty enjoined in the Constitution and thatjiti not to bt supposed these means would be Ieft be provided brthe States But andnconvenienqewhieh may exist from the absence of powers in a given case doe not conferthese jjowers and Jh argument from it as to tho intention of the founders pf the const itutjoh i only to be resorted to in euts which are: very upon the wordS ''L''ts ''5 it seems to yourCommittee that thi ease no auch incbntenieneW would existaTh constitu tion by its own force worked its own purposes and no farther legislation either state or ws necessary to enforce its provisions Before the con stitution the right of recaption? of a clave where vr I found existed as' the common or customary law ofnearly every State in the Union rforjall the States excepting only Massachusetts then recognized sis very fti ft vvhwsww own borders nd the subjects of 4 as property The owner might then follow and eize his slave and take him away ir as he might seize aha take his i riirl nf nersonar property ilOrBU Ug VV wspwyI 1 titinn nrnvimon ana me euevi Vlfwn 7 WB cowuivu 4 Ba anti therii and prohibited any irom cnanguig fying it brlegislatipnr ii ft void In the higher eourt to which thrfhasC went cessary for the security of we slaveholder an ti Chancellor Walworth delivered an obin needed no national (legislation iu ai 1 I ionfexactiy opposition it character he holding of Lent' If them lrfana "lv thf th I reclaim bim Heeul 1 artel Congra ahoria bvtbconUtu I provision his pnL I la i tiniV fcrid confteauftritlv voidwhilft 7 nGjDftinUunftd liable to I wrii bernmej re'lt opinion dirtenUngftom tlmCnm'aSA I the procesa of Aomos 50 'trnw inrliviT chnncollor 4 I and on ojher handifanindivid cellor gom9what simirar character to ual rescued from hi cuaiiv ijs Blave that of Alexander alias JfathanJiiwsley wfty with' the recaption qf one actually his saveitqjo court of Kew Jersey such individual would foe hbl Jjm ag JJ There i yet no authorized report of the case and amount of the injury done to the owne 4 coimnittee depend upon the account of an in slave would be Xent waspreseht 1 at the atrial owner have the same rights iprelatio thev have been trouble to? he had in relation toeveryother species of perse al property ri awayslave' was Carried qne Hay wood a tBut it is necessary on th question of nstroc peace of the county of Barhngton tion to examine somewhat the history ot we certificate that ho was ai slavdtcM lation the National qpyernment of tibe a Cougres tho ntinwsuchas was vested in it by the constitution States and the judicial 8tatute of the State but instead8 of 4ehyei ptingfiuchasw Snrrendered were been made under their enactments him to thecomplainanto committed lumforithe i vrrvL thia rinim io uiu iiiKti yfei i be cxercisea oy xne fknPi me to Dnson tnoncn wnnout i of thOBO lftWfte tjC nn panted to the United States by undoubtedly it is enuueu to the validity of these law kJ the Stated But itris to be remebe L1 Such are all the cases which have arisen in any the constitution or proh t6 the this claim has not been unremsted clause then in the constitution ofthe have attempted rto lhiws sJubstanti 1 knbwmtO'yourCommittee involving jtho "nstitu rle roinn hot bv words or implica although some of them have passed 1 others' I tionality of ofLCongressor WhJh4hia gheffThe piovis There aie pother i ha frxtinn 0 11 auu b7 dvnu wf her lawpcn CC IUj46 A wreme ngbt mA Sg 9 bdTroJMdbutto eg bv the court nor was we hiAhs i veiipfl Riinneu io a Htw tn renw wrav rw nnnAthA riftim uimiuimvuv A waein fthAll Du ucMVCIlU a s'M i A 1 1 A mH i an vAiatiAn fft IRA CftBW Wlivd VV wsm mv ownl and manviof them a in direeonftamci oiww a iemebmdthaVfofeither iv i a wvmv i enflTWTiaLns ui a a i a Tii a ''ki Hnnwer of Congress to pass any jiaw upoiiwoauw however 'first to livlvaniaand Massachusetts yitSa 'first of which i i aUa raa iu xelatipn to jts effpqt a willi ba nereauerjx our say from the peculiarrelation weoear he fiupreme Judicial Court Jof this Common i bconsiasrpa tn IS UBLI8HKD WMEKIY KTO S5 OOBWHXX1X BV' BxXTJkIPIPa 1 LLOYD ARHISON EDITOR I JM 4 aM TfO DOLLARS per annuJn payable' in ttsxnd nf six $300 si Ote expiration I i tAUMteffand muiiT por beiK 'Yha rude is imperative in order to shield us the frequent impositions of our Those twhowish their letters to be taken from the OJjixt by us will be careful tp pay their postage 7 2 Is 2 gOttrnBR COURTESY AND CHIV1IR win precious piece of rhetoric jgcpn i i' mrn rv teined in a' letter of two members of the last Coggl VOIrt Vn 8i wlHi! OV dated Washington eb 1418Thedb BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS nf these honorable nabobs are IL 1 A I C'S Jf Xtitos and however low in the scale of degrada 1 tieni disappointed ambition andlhe1 spirit of re ofRepresenlahvtsMarchX' venje may nave reduced him yet language apprtfjjgj crimmittee ori the Judiciary to whom priate to others who might endeavor to ferred Ian order of January 20tb 'directing them foundation of our institutions slavery ndspver Ji inquire into the expediency xf restoring the the Union tpay notbe applied to him 4 is sunk jt djj hon)ine rcplqgiando or of providing some beneath reproach and his late wicked attempt has I other process by which one under personal re withered him with scorn to worse than a cypher I lltrajnt may try his right to liberty before a he stands alone and Ms' incapable of further mis Man(1 lq iiom 08O WQa petition of chiefs This is not declamation but a melancboly Gilbert Durfee and others citiiensof all troth Mr Adams is to day as odious as a traitor Rjvgniprayin" the passage of such laws as will is the sole author of his own disgrace and a signal gecure l0 (fooso claimed as slave in this Com warning to the ago in which Jives of fallen TOon weal li a trialby jury and other petitions in greatness blasted hope and overthrown ambition aid of ithe'samo object beg leave respectfully to brought about by reckless and unprincipled conduct 1 i as a public man We hope the lesson may sink tL2jzREPORT: If was not by jury on all question of personal freedom by e7 treli on it treason in ft nd it th old writ he Sirt St reward ltif 'Brt traltort lri ''LEGIsiATVliE NEW YORK Lgal efftrt and' constitutional authoriiy liould be iz bon tbo thpr hand! the netitioners direct 1 to all state authontj Inrderto fin XsMinbM March 29 Mr'T said it ly raise these questions which the order does not wnuldbe recollected that an abolition petition was pre They make the case of persons seized as a short? time ago purporting to be signed by fugitive slaves the whole ground their complamt some' students of Hamilton college A memorial he against jthe existirig laws They allege that he said had that jnotning been handed to him by the pre process of delivering up such fugitives in use un dent of that institution' who stated that the first intima supposed authority of the United States is Li 1 omvIa tha foAliIf Al inn I a A 1 tion tof tne peiuion reicrtu iu unlawful! that from tne looseness auu uuiuuwuij college through their representative the assembly Qf wfth which it is connected free He was desired to present the petition and to ask for the of lhis Comippnwealth are liable to be and reading of it i ti A that are seized as slaves and on ex parte Affidavits hur to be o'" 'er nfthe that it is unusujl for any transaction bondage and they ask of this Legislature the en i ninoiiv xii without I nfinwa which shall secure toevery person the slightest knowledge olany inertiberof the faculty caimed as a slave what they insist to be bi con and that it was atfiret unaccountable that young stitutional right a trial by jury ofher institutions would habitually ingenuous and orderly should this case Aeide from the interesting and delicate questions law and thespnt of her ins being free who' with remarkable secresy have acted a part equally at Presented by the petitions the Committee 1 otherwise have made every nw man virianre with the principles ofthe college government 1 prel JLititoilin renortinff a bill in con should have come within her border) she cannot and with ths judgment and feeling of every: officer qf would nfthe order They believe shrink from performing' to the full part oQ HMtiWiS fo ylh Je the contract into which she entered i The memorial goes antoftole that upon examination he furnishing of such a wjthout refer' The second Congress of the Slates passed an( it appears that at an early period of the session a letter ject of this inquiry act prescribing among manner in ssKifXotTrtnSrtiorti obHgio lower of lb Cnge of4lre bihert pollel Lere art 0l 5 wrtiguiiiMic rttww ft i ry io a that aHrwsirdM fas nrjnears V'tciuaijy a kora tn riiRcnss trvQ mer forwardedand that the request was not at Che time complied that a communication was subsequently received by the same Student from the same source obviating objectionsd urging a comph litre ron iiKfftTi(3 that tfift XCSUlt Ot llkv ill 1 these repeated solicitations was the petition in question The memorial further states that a number of the sign ers most of whom are mmorsand many ot them boys disclaim all sympathy with abolition societies and that of them say they were misled by the misrepresen rations from Albany and some? that they acted without reflection Bt the solicitation of their fellows A The memorial concludes by asking the protection of "the house against the interference of any of its members in the internal concerns of the institution and particu lari that the students may not be invited to political action on any subject whatever by any member of the house to the discredit ami injury of the college and in contrayention pl the principles on which its g07: inent has evef been conducted andever will be con 4 Jresidenu7diHLithiip prtf'rtbTcs Ac Chas 7 prof chemistry fee Simeon North prol lang Marcus Catlin prof math and Oren Root si We Tucker moved that the memorial be lft i on the table and saying that it might become the of future consideration and action it? nreedirigs ofVpub ite meeting citizen of 0nrtd county reference to the abolition petition from thp of Hamilton stating it to weu there that these students were I Thev were: i and petition hy tne urgent should rest upon tne vacillating sentimentof that bo placed on the I i a a1 a ik a myb Afnmp wnwwsnr inn a uuuucuv ef Hamilton college had nothing to do by wJ a eou raging said students loenu iwouia qe Bupjmcu the contrary were ignorant that any o4 gress proposed an amendment extending this mode rt A rnrtra mmnM OI Inft I i ihra ATYinimt in ais UH appnsea or ine laci uy iviww The proceedings also disapprove I dento in our literary institutions organizing into societies with view of acting politically in he al fairs of our state or nation or of influencing the legisla tUMr remarked that so far as agency in the matter he had done 4 unwilling should come to 4he A ublic thought there were some statements there is supposed to the first memorial which would not out to be facts He could haveJStisbed that the 6 Rev president of the college bad consulted wi th him JX causing these papers to be presented ihoueht that a lull I would place the matter all suits between two which be was willing to stand concerning property inwhich it Jias luin Senate MondayApril 3 Mr heretofore been used and practised the to reconsider the vote tawu r' tion to the'appropriation to be made' to Kami it 'x' logo Mr stated that he had ascertained from un doubted authority that the slavery xSZfohr ''students ot that institution presented was got up without the knowledge of the acuity ami 7t Yheinstigatipn oi a naemberof the otherHouse 00 remarks7 by Taige reprobating in strong terms theieuigi ot abolitiism foe and $5000 a tar for Me years was appropri hat College Ths SMlish Baplltt he we always suspected it now appears that of Africa i i i LreKAH aniAnrS BCDUTVIff wn A lOlff lhe (lUWtn oi Wi a ire Mbtatrn ni nirasioi 178rwhewits provisions dified were by repeated de Board of our Triennial Convention areompamed by I incorportcd in statute which was Af cisionslof the highest tribunals' ofi various states which they openly declare tha petermnation to legislation till revision sfine provisonS of thecon la acknowledge no rule of iniereoureewmcu law The' Commissioners rop tHat the udicia am arerenu IrPrlV un IUIO Sto1 I uwa 1" it AO I MlltllllLJIla Beitiooretbetbchaincon whom thia greatworK was mure power of the United States shall bi vested Ufiii to receive and sit TZriZ I Commended it re SvpfenLcourt and in syf niMB iiwewier i fmn i mm it rwwimi bu ui wv i wts a orission of their aaopuour fnrindatori' I 1 pleateil that have the early spoken We grej committee 6f revis 4'r ktef and kt IM 7 I Southern Watchman 1 i I I i I tt nNrn TOlMiissnCznouw abd Przitom iw 1 ln paper we gave I tract from Mr speech we furnish from I tb Charleston Mercury some account at Mr Cal I j' I Mr Calhoun alluded to ha ctmsMred ft I A' the mightiest vii that had ever threatened our Govern I Jnd the only euso now in operationsqfficiently eZed Norforo x7Sc7ured to himgm its Vuthque Ut we interest a re a re re a a wvaw wre a arev i a a a a a re 4re a a I i waftaonc off encer? Bul tfie couH orerrorsf inv ll JrerereliAlS HA iniR OB IbiftlUJl '1 awi i iiirenof itllTIrtn tbelrTaHaterelay I rccomroeDding that ritded thVhej could no chilled tneir sympremy i he immediately restored lire in rttotofU JOgW COUIU constitution in it word who can doubt that uch a 4 re a A Ma mP1T aaM th1: thirf escaping into dn hiclaim of sarea i a zu a a a awKBa a acxa: wwm iti 11 iifji ftfanv aworrcffUinjion iumv Tioi otner biiuii in vuMouuwvsiwv ksidWiNpw wtiw mvwwjr therein be discharged from such service or I JnsTof her law upon be subject or rihall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom oOTtof her jaw I ri his comers no 1 sucn service vtnuu uj 1 a ir or as vour Corn pity arising suinoniy upoir fce th'Lfnuea imiueecan 6eeuT wavv unlvlnnwer 1 1 i re heeainrr rpriH ui id i airutiuy ioirlvd BUIU ftkiHtl in MJ DT WVDJCHJUCrD iJKAitho invnivPH firuiun siisiit a tiunhoon nutuDon I unonciuzeiis xuv wiwy I ekJi hA zipiiverea oi 7 it A a 1 3 ucirudtcu iu vuugi fess after a full examination of the question that aside from the decisions upon the fubject their de cided opinion would have been tha no such author ity nor any authority on the subject was conferred upon Congress by the constitution Certainly there is no suchexpress power given howitcan in any way be fairly inferred It is be recdlectea that the United States' government i nna limited uowers having no authority ex land that ail the powers not so surrendered were i i a a a si nw I rptninrl hv the iStDtCS ftHQ CuD I I necessary jl ure Art in 9 i proviucB kf the United States shall be vested one re re re re anu 'I iicl arz mn nnn rjauv Vm then is the judicial power oi ure vs re eamw 1 1 a eeciiPii ui uv uuiv 'j'w mi nr? lire) I 1 nt nuuiviai 1 xtend to all cases in law ano equuy We havo the construction which has been put upon in I and upon the return iAcriirp ine ourevi nuuv lL it inwoses duties upon the author joflgefwTO kc Tfl OJI rere with to oom Dsriies 'vwuuvv 2 Unfttitntiftiiftiitr ot the act was nfftuwiw hnii be neriorineu res kfvittateii tneniuoc 1 the supposea ug Lshown foereafter iYour tmm mpni in leiuiu hmi cl ha right it not withstand 1 eokicfoivejy settledy remnted to be exercised on such atounaauon re it magistrates are tor uo Staiphibited Hinuvv thbTrOviea uimer result of incn'w fog anybill bUtUioder expost ftctoJaw law ofornndfog foenhbut inerqlyj impairing the obligation of contracts 8ng tj I thiStateofitbexcluxpiffier legistatioihich iRcr 26fi ui I ties of nobility rte wireu Congress jtracr with for in disregard otj any Ji5ge Bland of maintained that thepe prebibitton 8e' provisioh wera recomTnended by John fotimtion I oxn io Con nrefc which it would not have had wjtn wai vMftf fthnattemev' neneralusf tiw 1 nolitieal svs 4 zif 4r werekof which ajsweii iyu (M rerfl thoiact of Con jThe statutc pedin violatiyjyts Mtatl MAWklw vriL and BO Will be eronounvvu VJ Md vein1 MVW vw 3 lv rr which he imnnn aer inc laiws oi uw biuiv ssswj 7 111 I iL couJon nr labnr Der 1 their or noiu uu such claimant his agent or attorney be warrant for sucn iugiuvu to the state and territory from which he 'rkii nov cortinn imposes a penalty of $500 tjpori any person who shall hinder uch ar ivpvuv to CreU rere 'W I 1 iLre miiwsa nt srmnA ftilnfi DC JI was apparcnUV UJWpinpvov iitinnersrelthouffh not directly proposed oy: wein 4 Jil thorn rennrificall ft trial i Ku secured to the per puposesj so imes 1 1 his 1 umi ure yj ai nv inde itirv But other questions arise 1 re 1 teArtc hr fiicritive not UV any IJ re 1 re Link inAlormrl frn reat dissatisfaction among ine jre engrafting a provision tore proviueior ure grwa unwilling that 1 tins WOTfl pmi ri upon the prbceding under moure the united states our commiiure 1 and cemanaep ofopfoion that this cannot be done It the high ground of constitutional Jar nP1st(lnionaasthev nHege I The constitution wqs nevertheless adopted be ahd if it be the general understanding that this deficiency herwis 6UCh a course would obviously bebe Id he And the powers of State legislation It is true in an amnndmpnt extending ItilS inOll a ireu: tkoowifimnfA daw deed on many wiunu er of Congress that in the absence of any action by them the States may legislate but this clearly cannot bt when Congress has exercised its power inthe enactment of a law evidently intended to covet thb whole subject and when as in this case the spirit and object oi mat iaw wuuiu uv uau 4Lre reL rerereJ 1 rPtllA 1 Uy U1V UiViJVBCU UVMVU XZ 4 There is another difficulty which! perhaps may as well be noticed in this connection The Com mittee bplieve that such a measure would be unau thorized because itwould attempt to regulate the proceedings of the judmial tribunals or we vn ire a question in this view of the subject is States It is true that by jthe act before quet 1 Jeftitt jaati on ig within the powers ed the rial (so far as any trial is provided for) of Krerirrht nfthe master mav ns well be before a Ideiegatea to yongrew that state magistrate as the judges of the Circuit and District your Commutes after a lull investigation of the question believe that this part I ofthe law is unauthorized and void' It is a well settled principle that congress cnnirei VL nf the United States son pari ui ure juuiiu state magistrates or officers In the the Supreme Court of the United Stites (I Wheat on 304r Congress cannot vest any portion ot tne judicial of the States except PRtablished bv itself and by a by which lhe question ot tne ngni io order to give courts d6qi could be directly passed upon this character the filling rejectiely muet be wjrt4 comnisbioned oy inj governnivuv Statesunder a previous law of Congress lbw doctrine was maintained in ine cepro rere re JT? 1 kfo fl A 70 4ft ft 11 1 ire Mtinvar'u i wv tor riot orilv been since recognized in the Supreme The Slate of attempted to regulate the subject ha ieeentlH passeu Jaw by a vote almost unanimous in botat bouses giving to those claimed as fugitive elayag flSide a I While the fa I hlidDnicPof IClhlltHoiJa'YOU Committee are Sorry to'findthat tbe jddicial iopin lons upon'thri respective claim4 of tneBtatq fwiconflicting and some respects unsatisfactory The firat ce wbicftM? they will noticew Pfright 'alidk HsUnil Dramn: (S Serff decided the ntoT remccourt of Penney Ivanhr Tlii was a writ de homine reptegiando' against id a The Act were thati the plafotiffwa claimed as a ftigitive one Gale pf Marjr zO land Who arrested' him rnd carriSdshhw before air magistrate The magistrate committed the tiff to pi won till evidence could be precured iniw behalf of the claimant1! The plaintiff while thraj situation sued out a writ ef habeas Corp tvlumet able before judge Armstrong who heard the par die a nd adjudging the plaintiff to be a alar re 'h manded him ante the custody of defendant giving also a certincaw accorureg vuK Tho plaintiff then sued oukthi wnt andjhe eourt decided that he could not maintain The qu tion of the constitutionality of th law ef Congre Jwas not even raised at thi4nal but thaj court undertake to give a construction of its meaning and effect its validity must of course have been aaaurn ed They say in their opinion that foecertifi cate ofi JudgoArmstrongwasconfonnabla tozthy requisition of the of Congress therefore the' plaintiff was not entitled tOthC: writ de hoaine re a plegiarido Tbe committee would remark upoq this opinioti tea trd 'lvThat it was entirely extra judicial not called a nrlh nlaintiff bavmff voJontanly sued otit writ of corpus against the 'defondank and the question of hw right to liberty havingibeen decided against him nder4 it he could hot of course try uOYtt agm the 'Question by another and concurrentremedy IV reh judicata a thing judicially and conclusively rsettled) between the parties and on a originating with plaintiff nwn mado ef trial and he could not afterward Idisturb th question And 'this view danvixDOj 'strength from the act of Congress but: (well known principles of law The opinion as to the effect of theHw Erectly coritradictory to that ofthe "oprem? co urtotMassachusetts hereafter cited see also annyv Montgomery and othett ITJtW i Rnt il although it seems to have the1 sane 1 wwwtowrto sr hjCv re awt miaft 5 Mrl Serreant: tsereeanvp 3981 Other observations wpicfi apply to this case entftled to cohlderatibntwA deled by our own supreme court Commombealth vi rrifith 2 Pick IL3 ThlaTWh mdictmunkfofe brtJ Syhe dfnaw named Randolph The defence toms slave formerly the property of oneMcvarty Stated The defendant wa attorney of he dmfth me uisiriuu juus'i In custodyC The question was whether fact ramounteo a justification of the seizure 'court held that they did and in their the belief that the law of Congress uponjhis 1 1 constitutional and valid ejy Iff (relation to this case it is tobe addition to the fact th a Wbi question 1 of many raised atthe trial i I iThit there were but tbree edges upon Wk a iMenled from the nencn au viwvi At Thatrthe poWefbtCorigresfl fo legislate upon ihe subject as not discussed tutionality of the lawwas impugned upon the ground 1 40 pass some lawupo the subject have been taken for granted 3 No opinion as to the validity jir effect of the law was called for by the casGriffith sjigltt seize his slav? existed under the constitution indp pendently of the law of Congress If no such law fe had been made his defence would have beeffper feet for lbe master under wsnd (havs had the right to taka the slave as bispropsriy I any where and foe State could not divest blip ofjtt The case however of Jacky JWartv finally disposed of in foe court of error Ww York Dee 1835 is the 7 one under Thich al the questions upon have oeen tne most uuiy anociauorawiy uivuasu This was on a writ de homine replegiando mt 7 by plaintiff otter a certihcate uy me rucoruor oi New Yorkv' substantially in compliance wifo (the law of Congress? though foe process upon jwhiwit granted was that of habeas corpus Ths stitiitionality of foe law of Congress aS not naces sarilyinvolved in the decision forthesaHierearon it 'was not in foe case in foe 2d Pik foe case was finally decided against Jack solely on foe ground that having by his pleas admitted Inathe was: the' slave ofthe defendant and hadwMpe' liromher service foe defendant 4 judgment1 and this whether the law? qf Congress was valid or invalid But both courts before it came Considered the question of its constitution AS WT reSre reA11 OVlDlODj VV WMUCMj WV swv 1 CL 1 eViA'SsztmmbatsstlAVk TVA tri gress iraa aukuuiAzcu uj tu the statute of foe State was unconstitutional and bh error Chancellor Walworth delivered an opin under an ict of Congress 'which' gave in ex LrillVy UriOUIVil un eV I 4W Jaj ri But the court 01 errors ibu ii jCiueu inai iiivy vuuiu nV 'of exercise it and tne wnoie mn judges White Brockcnbotough Sample Allen Randolph Debney 4 Otofri following judgment: 1 no court own decide that as foefoffence described inlhe meni in inis case creaicu re Antw AAbMSV UIH1H I Sf? Thebre Ms a in principle in 6 113 1 rarnnbefl See also the opimonof Judge Cheves of South Carolina 12 zciotfea ano ophhuu 1 "7 st' reij a 1 i Penn in the case ot josrjm rEIll before the supreme tt nn ill lUKiw i a a rm a Ol Uli kV va ve ft I IL i a trial which mvojyeq too wiiuwif ojKnj unite I of hi own limbs and lacuiwes one wvi ai6 fo JSwnenfoipofhimsslf? And aside from tha ques gross passed Aug 2 1813 forj i I but their form is in violation of thqi express provi sions of our constitution 7 The doctrine upon this subject wnicn iu? rhittee have endeavored to establish leads to tue conclusion that the law of Congress is void only ft efivjaiiamptsito vest nower in state magis trates leaving the jurisdiction of the judges or me 1 circuit and district courts of the United States un XiV 1 rrjX ikoea rinncilpM tinflR 1 TllltthlS VlCWiOL United States reswing aucuiu rMtlirM of before any magistrate the subject while it remora to their! rights which in times ofa ft hemnZ Jd upon proof to LestroysW gfcund work ol foe yer were wrung trom xeiuciaui 7" relief which some or mem seem 10 uwmr if tkto rrj'Twr! trend me saiisiacuon 01 buu JUug 1 the proceedings ure urbi into tpfitimonv or affidavit taken before anu cer of the colony of Ne Plymouth icwo i 1 of any stich state or terntq 1 all crimmall facts and also all ntte" tried JvthatThe person so seized or arrested doth un and debts betwCene man and man should be tried PTritorv from whichhe bv the verdict of twelve Jionest men to be it nellefli by authority in forme or a jury upn in ir 1 him or her it shall be the duty ofsuch and the same princip to be foundn foe thereof to lununnieuioi ito v4 never lost sight of or yielded inis priiiuipiy momentJn the declaration ofSinatioDal nghte in 1774 tbey claimed the trial by jqry as Aheir birth right andrinheritance and when our independence was secured it ws guarded by constitutional pro in the rmintrv VVfien tne Visions ill tvciy Miutu constitution of the United States proposed for adoption It was found that it recogned and ertab tre trimna Illfi KfthPd ttiAr ntrnt OD VIU IIW'MIM vi 1 TO mAniV Inn naiDUttJU tuirogc 4k rlrxto UD'A POaUCCU (glcttl uiaBauoiuvyy ai iu lUre re aiMants upi nroni tea to arW uP ki thio Bftrrcr mere uii Lx were thaDnresent legislBture that they leyen in civil cases Arei Kr iham unn ma nniirv nr iPniBiaiiun unu 1 high ground of constitutional are wxnorat ssniimTii ui ma vv lhe confident belief that the governments right with wrnillfl 11A rJ Yu wU the amount in dis Ol Isltkl UM Call PTV1 nni1" nutn should exceed twenty dollais The Commit tee will have occasion tb allude tofoese in tbe constitution of the United States hereafter At present they refer to some provisions of our own State constitution Art xii of the firsti part I contains the great principle of the 1 which (has received a settledconstruction eMuJ no subject shall be arrested imprisoned despoiled or deprived of his property immunities or privileg es pu out of the protection ofthe law deprived ef his life liberty or estate judgment of his peers or the lawtof the land I a ire iT ll AntenvarfllPS Acraim in the xvtn iu concerning and more persons except cases which it has re reJ nAtlC0n ThP nprpininru uveii parties have a right to the trial by jury and tnis method of procedure shall be held sacred unless in causes arising on the high seas and such as I to wages the Legislature shall hereafter I find it necessary to alter it? 1 2 mnrfl narticularlv JlSeiprW UJC vsbsassY these provisions theywould take a shortview of the history of the writ de homine replegiando whiqh I 4 1 i re Vnnwn in tnis Com jurnisnea we UreM cotifts'dn I nt Aa nupshon ofthe nirht to vuunM i monvrcaiUJ vy nwvw MW al e'eArl nnnn hr I personal freedom I JNty 'l 1 Thift writ existed as a pan or uw vuwwvu 1 2 a rrnntw condition and inr lino suneu a I 5 stitutions of our ancestors it needed na formal eff 1 I re to a sso ar A II 1S 1 11 I acunent to give it rorce in yie i Martin ''1 ed thus a part bf the unwritten lawot the Ian? UH I I modified vere I 4 Urek loftnntf tU IU a ire till tna vnrpnr rpvisiun inent i It a I MKttutar i HTMMBinWilWWWWBMMWMBTCrin i TV" bJwM saw a re: 6rsn 1 tTWTnv 18 tbs AZi MAiw i'irl 4' 1 1 iJ II ke Up Vr wl LM iv jtME Jg Bh gWW ife 5 BE 891 a ZA vi At A uyyA rjr a WtH A'A aa A A i Jffj J1K i 'V Ah AAA: 7 Vs Mg fl HI I ME 4 'i i i 5 s' SS i ImP iSfl If I 3 ft1 1 A IfWs IhU I.