Viewing page 16 of 32

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

16

carried into effect by the United States."  "The condition of the blacks being in this union regulated by the municipal laws of the separate States, the Government of the United States can neither guarantee their liberty in the States where they could only be received as slaves, nor control them in the States where they would be recognized as free." Doc. 48, H. Rep. 2 sess. 16th Cong. p. 15.

It may comport with the interest or feelings of a slave State to surrender a fugitive slave to a foreigner, or at least to expel him from their borders.  But the people of New England, except so far as they are bound by the compact, would cherish and protect him. To the extent of the compact we acknowledge our obligation, and have passed laws for its fulfilment. Beyond that our citizens would be unwilling to go.

A State has no power to surrender a fugitive criminal to a foreign government for punishment; because that is necessarily a matter of national concern.  The fugitive is demanded for a national purpose. But the question of the surrender of fugitive slaves concerns individuals merely.  They are demanded as property only, and for private purposes.  It is, therefore, a proper subject for the action of the state, and not of the national authorities.

The surrender of neither is demandable of right, unless stipulated by treaty.  See as to the surrender of fugitive criminals, 2 Brock. Rep. 493; 2 Sumner, 482; 14 Peters, 540; Doc 199 H.R. 26 Cong. p. 53, 70; 10 Amer. State Pap. 151, 3, 433; 3 Hall's Law Jour. 135. An overture was once made by the Government of the United States to negotiate a treaty with Great Britain for the mutual surrender of fugitive slaves.  But it was instantly repelled by the British Government. It may well be doubted whether such a stipulation is within the treaty-making power under the constitution of the United States. "The power to make treaties", says Chief Justice Taney, 14 Pet 569, "is given in general terms....and consequently it was designed to include all those subjects which is the ordinary intercourse of nations had usually been made subjects of negotiation and treaty; and which are consistent with the nature of our institutions, and the distribution of powers between the general and state governments." See 14 Peters, 569, Holmes vs. Jennison. But, however this may be, the attempt to introduce it in evidence that, unless provided for by treaty, the obligation to surrender was not deemed to exist.

3dly. If there was no objection to the appeal on account of the want of interest, or of power in the Executive Government of the United States, in any case, to prosecute an appeal at the representative of others, to