Press enter after choosing selection

Report Of The Committee On Federal Relations

Report Of The Committee On Federal Relations image
Parent Issue
Day
4
Month
March
Year
1844
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

The committee on federal relations, to whom, from time to time, have been referred, by ihe House of Rcpresentatives of the State of Michigan, various petitions for the passage oí" a law "for the protection of personal liberty," have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report: The petitions presentad to the House on this subject are all couched in the same language, and pray the legislature "to, enact a Iavv for the further protection oípersonal liberty, prohibiting, under suitable penalties, anyjudge or other magistrale acting under the authority of this state from taking cognizance of claims under the third section of the actofCon' gress of 12.th February 1793, and also prohibiting any sheriff, jailer or other officer or citizen of this state from seizing, detaining or irnprisoning any person claimed as a slave, or aiding in transporting any person so claimed, from this state. ;'Of the fjfty-thousand legal voters of the State of Michigan, five hundred and Uvcnty-five. purjport to have signed these petitions: And o f the thirty counties sending representatives to this House, six have - furnished the petitions appearing before it on this subject. How rnany of these -petifioners have ever seen or read the act of Congress of 1793. or the clause in the constitution in pursuance of which that act was passcd, or the dccisions of the supreme court of the United States., or both; the committee are not prepared lo say. But they are disposed to believe that very few of the petitioners, could have read either. ff they had, surely, as vvell disposed citizens, they never could have consented to invite the Lcgislature of Michigan, not only. to disregard the act of Congress in questipn, but to resist it by legal and penal enactments, and in doing so to viólate the federal constitution.That instrument declares that "this constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof," shall Ie the supreme laxo of the land; and the judiciary of every. state is to be bound thereby, and of course every citizen in bound to obey it. The third section of the fourth article of thè constitution provides, that "no person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law therein, be discharged, from such service or labor; J.k shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such, service or labor may be due.v This is the plain and unequivocal injunction oí the constitution of the UnitedStates, the supre?nc law of the land, on this subject. In strict pursuance of this constitutional injunction the act of 1793, which the petitioners substantially pray this legislature to disregard and viólate, was passed Congress and approved by Washington. Nor has it, as the committee are informeel, ever been proposed in Congress to repeal it. It is ':an act respeoting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping -from the service of their masters." The third section provides that when any person held to labor in any of the states, imder their laws, shall escape into any of the other states, the person to whom such labor or service is due, or his agent nrattorney, is empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive; to take him before any United States judge, or anijmagistrate of any eounty, iown or city, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made; and upon satisfactory proof, that the person so seized or arrested does ovo service under the laws of the state from which he fled, such judge or magistrate shall give a certifícate of that fact to suchclaimant, his agent or attorneyj and this shall be a sufficient warrant for removing said fugitive to the state from which he fled. And yet this enactment of Congress,so lucid in its terms that "he who runs may read," the petitioners ask the legislature to prohibit under penalties,any magistrate acting under the authority of the '.state' from recognizing or carrying inio effect.The petitioners seem not to have been aware, that by the fourth section of the same act of Congress, any person knovingly or wilfulJy obsirucling or hindering theclaimant of a fugitivo -from service,his his agent or attórney, in seizing orarresting him, or shall rescue, harbor or conceal kim,' is subject for either of these offences,to forfeit and pay the penalty of fivehundred dollars. The supreme court of (he United States, ihe higncst judicial tribunal in ihe country, have seitlec! thè questions arising under this uct of congress. ' At the January term of 1342, of that court, the case of Edvvard Prigg against the commonwealili of Pennsylvanin, canie up on a writ of error to the suprerhe court of tiat state.Tñgg wns a citizen of fllaryland, and was incTíctéd in Pennsylvunia for forcibly taking a slavc and carfy'ing J)er nto Maryland, with the iníention of holding her o slaverj, or selling her, for life. The worñan had Gfcoped and fled from MaryJand, where she was, by its laws, a sin ve of a itizen of that state. Shé was seized by. Png-g-, in York, Pennsylvania, lindera vvarrant from a jusJice of the pnucc n ih.it granted in pursoance o,the tliird section of the act of congress of 1793, which {ha petitioners now ask the legidaiure of Michigan to set at aught. The canse was taken up to the supremo court.oftlíc United States, with tlie sanclion of both the slates of MoryJand and Pennsyl - vania, fa order to have the qnestions in the caseset'lcd. Afier nble árgumont and mature considèration, the suprcme court of the United States unanimously deoided in favor of Prigo-, and remandad the cause to the snpreme court of Pennsylvaia, wi:h diréctions accordingly; and Prigg was discharged without day.The court say, tliat the elause in the constitution, respecling fngitivce from Jabor, "manifestly contempJates the existence of a positive and UDqanlified right on the part of the owner to his slave, which no law or reulation ofany state can in any way qnaiify.con trol, or rest.rain;"'and "ihe ful] recognition of this rigljt was so vital to the pres'ervalion of the domestic interests and institutions" of thestaf.es, that without lts atioption into the constitution, the union could not have been formcd." The court decide, that 'Hhe osvner of a fugitive slave has the same nght to seize and tak e him in a state to which he Ji;id escuped and fled. thnt lic had in the state from which he escapeti,"' and ény t-liat "it is well knówn tliat this rig-ht to seize and recaptnre isuniversolly acknow'lëo'ged in the slave states;r' and "the coiirt had not the süghtest hesitafion in holding, that in virtueofthe constitution, the owner of the slave is clothed witb the authority in every state of the Union to seize and re-capture hjm."They declare that the provisions of the act of Congress of 1798,relative to fugitive slaves, are clearly qonstiiutional, and thaL the power of legislation in relation to such fuginves is exclusively in the national legislature. The court did not, in speciiic term?, decide wheiher state Jegislation might, ormight not, prohibit state magistratea from acting under the act of Congrcss. That was not neces-ary. The cónclusive right of Congress to legslate on the subject was asserted. The court said that the nature of the Jegislative power over the matter required that it should be excltisively exercised by Congress, and thatit was as completely taken from the state legislature asif they had been forbidden by Ihe constitution to act. Besides, in the case of an act of Congress clearly constitutional, - niformly recognized as such by all the authorilies of the Union, the state Jegislatures have no right to attempt to control their citizens or magistrates in their duty to aid in the execution of the act,. The act of Congress being a supreme law of the land, the state magistrales are bour.d to lend their aid to its due administration.But Ihe chief justice himself in the case Jiere referred to, in effect maintained that while the states were.prohibitedfrom inlerfering to protect the runaway slavcs; the constitution does not prohibit them from Jegislating lor the protection and support of the owjier when heis reclaiming suchproperty found within their ]mits. He thought the constitution enjoined this upoii tbe states as a duty. If the state oilicers are not bound to execute the duties imposed upon them by the act of 1793. that act, says the chief justice, :tscarcely deserve? the name of a remedy." He, therefore, affiirms 'the obligationand the rightofthe state authorities to protect the master when he is endeavoi-ing to seize a fugitive from liis service." Other judgesof the court said, that the states might legislate in aid of the constitution and the act of Congress on the subject. None of them pretended, that they could legislate against either. And the whole court concurred as to the binding obligation of the constitution and the law respegting fugitives from labor, upon the people, the states and their magistrates.The commtttee, therefore, consider this question as settled. This Iegislatu re cannot comply with the prayer of the petitioners. They cannot, without a palpable violation of tho constitution of the United States, and of the act of Congress made in pursuance of that constitution, pass any law on the subject, except to aid in the execution of the provisions of bóth the constitution of the United States, and the act of 1793, respecting fugitives from service or labor in the several states. Any law of this state prohibiting our judges or magistrate "from taking cognizance of claims for fugitive slaves under the third section of the act of Congress of February. 12th, 1793," or "prohibiting any sheriff, jailor or other officer or citizen of this state," from aiding in seizing, arresting or transporting any fugitive slave to the state from which said slave fied, would n,ot only be a perfect nullity, but it would be a direct infraction of the constitution, a gross disobedience of a constitutional act of Congress and a demolition one of the bavriers raised by the federal for the protection and. perpet uation of the union f the states.Nor is there any thing in the local po.sition of Michigan, invoking her legislation for the ehcouragement of rünaway slaves to settle within her limits. She has a frontier-of several hundred milesj within sight of a foreign territory, which aflbrds a refuge for this species of populatiori, where upon thecomtnissionof offences within this state, they may, at any moment, seek safety and impunity from the puniühment due to their crimes. Without refercnco to the evilswhich this brings upon our citizens individually,-the odium whiclr we should incur, in the estimation of many of our sister slates, by a positive encouragement and bounty to their runaway slaves, could not be acceptable to the feelings of any friend to the harmony and duration of this confederacy of republics. And it is certainly far from desirable to hold out inducements to the Mades of the south to settle among us, to come intocompetition. or to be placed on a footing with the white laborers of this free state.ít vvould be ídle for the committee on federal relations to profess unmitigated hostility toslavery in evcry form, The sentiment is common to all the citizens of Michigan. The convention which framed the constitution of the state were unaniraousin the adoption of an article íbrever prolribitingitsintroduction within her limits. We are entirely free from the sin, and the evil of negro slavery. But we owe obligations to our sister otates created by the federal compact. We cannot disregard or release ourselves from them without an amendment to thestitution, or a secession from the Union. And let who elsc may be, the committee on federal relations, are neither so reekless of the liberty of the free people af these states, nor so audaciously regardless of the mighty advantages resulting from theirconfederacyfor general and national purposes, as toincurthe fearful responsibility of recommending any measure which would leadtothedissolutiónof that confederacy, and to the consequent jeojardy of the freedom and tranquillity of the nation.The committee thercfore,respectfully ask to be discharged from further consideration of these and any,& all other petitions, praying this body to logislate against the constitution of the United States, or against acts of congress passed in rigid pursuance of that constitution. J. L. SCHOOLCRAFT, ClCn Com. on Federal Relations. : The Reyenue of the Stuto of New Vork, for this ycar, will bc about three million of dollars.

Article

Subjects
Signal of Liberty
Old News