6 constitutional, then let it be repealed. Not because there be anything in the present condition of the country which demands unusual action at our hands. Not because our southern neighbors complain of our laws, nor because we have resolved to repeal those laws which may be unconstitutional, but because it is right. Not at this time more than any other, but because at all times we should be ready to discharge duty. No other motive need, none other should control our action. So far as the legislation of our State in its internal affairs is concerned, that which is right to do now is right to do at any other time, that which is right to do at any other time is right to do now. The State is sovereign and independent only so far as that sovereignty has been merged in the general government for the best good of the whole. Being thus, with its legislation, no other power has to do, except when that legislation conflicts with the constitution, and thus with the rights of other States. But this section proposed to be repealed is declared to be unconstitutional. We are told that distinguished legal gentlemen in the other branch of this General Assembly declare it to be unconstitutional. Our own Judiciary committee, in the report before us, take the same position, and decide it to be so. Can I doubt it? However much I may, and do regard the opinions of those gentlemen, and however ready I may be, under ordinary circumstances, to govern my action by those opinions, in this case, having taken an oath to support that constitution, and having some faint idea of the meaning of language used, although my eyes may not see as clearly, my ears hear as plainly, and my understanding judge as correctly as those of others, yet by that seeing, hearing and judging, must I be governed. Hence upon this question, viewed from this stand point, must I be permitted to doubt, and doubting, to act accordingly. Wherein does the section under consideration conflict with the constitution ? An examination of the various authorities quoted by the majority in its report, shows this to be the substance of decisions of the United States Supreme Court, where this principle may be supposed to be involved, more concisely stated, perhaps, in that known as the Prigg case, than any other. 1st. That the owner of a slave has the right to seize and recapture a slave where, and whenever he can do so, without force or illegal violence; ” and 2d. That any State law or regulation which interupts, impedes, embarrasses, or in any way postpones the exercise of this right, is void.” While other decisions of that court determine that to Congress belongs the right to legislate for the return of fugitive slaves, and also that the present Congres
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=