Press enter after choosing selection

The Slavery Decision

The Slavery Decision image
Parent Issue
Public Domain
OCR Text

The Philanthropisl coutam nofes of the arguments and decisión of ihe Supreme Court, in reference to the great skve case. They occujy more than seven 6ohd colurans of that The most we can do for our readers will ba to give them the substance of the decisión on a few practical points. L. i4No state laws can be perrnitted to regúlate, qualify control or restrain the un qualified right of mvnership in slavea. The owner has, ni every stRte, all the rights con ferred by the local Iavvs of his own state. - States cannot legislate in aid of, or. agaiust the rights of the slaveholder." 2. "The power exerriscd by stale mngistratea. under the law uf 1793, was only by suíFerunce. Congreso had. no power to vest state uflicers, as such, with euch privileges. The states might, qlearly, prohibit their tnagistrates froin any iuterferenco in the case." Gonsequently, if a constable or mag ïstrate of Michigan hereafter arrest a fugitive, or give a certifícale., he will do itas a volunteer slave catcher. Dr. Bailey asks our legal frienda to teil U6 by what authorily a raagistrate can act at ali?, The Court' have decidedthat the Slates cannot confer sucl) power upon etatu otlïcers, and that Congress cannot: whence then do they derive their authority? By "sufförance" says the Court. But can. they confer such powt-r by connivance or toleration, in a cass v;liere they cannot act by direct legislationl Certainly not. To. make ihe matter surc, eacii Legislatuie should forbid its citizeus inter fering, in any manner, in the arrest or recovery of a fugitive. Let the southern ty rant look up his stray vaesals. 3. Judgc Taney eúd, 'the niaster must go before the U. S. Jadge to estabüsh his claim. The act of Congiess gave no power to issue a warrant to 6eize a slave." Judgo Wayne said, "the removal of a s lave f rom u state without a lgal proof of the duim to him, as an ofFence properly puciishablo. In the fiee states, at least, wliere the presurnption was in favor of freedom, the master inight seize but could nol removej vvi:hout suitubly eslablishing his claim and the statea might punisb the oiTence of doing ït." It will !e woll to bear these points in mine as cases may soon occur demanding their practical application.