And it further declares that No sheriff, deputy sheriff, coroner, constable, jailer, or other officer of this Commonwealth shall hereafter arrest or detain, or aid in the arrest or detention or imprisonment, in any jail or other building belonging to this Commonwealth, or to any county, city, or town thereof, of any person for the reason that he is claimed as a fugitive slave. And it further declares that— Any justice of the peace, sheriff, deputy sheriff, coroner, constable, or jailer who shall offend against the provisions of this law by in any way acting, directly or indirectly, under the power conferred by the third section of the act of Congress aforementioned shall forfeit a sum not exceeding $1,000 for every such offense to the use of the county where said offense is committed, or shall be subject to imprisonment not exceeding one year in the county jail. This law, it is obvious, had two objects. The first was to make it a penal offense in all officers and magistrates of the Commonwealth to exercise the powers conferred on them by the act of Congress of the 12th of February, 1793, entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters," and which powers they were fully competent to perform up to the time of this inhibition. and penal enactment; second, to refuse the use of the jails of the State for the detention of any person claimed as a fugitive slave. It is deeply to be lamented that the purpose of these enactments is quite apparent. It was to prevent, as far as the legislature of the State could prevent, the laws of Congress passed for the purpose of carrying into effect that article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due" from being carried into effect. But these acts of State legislation, although they may cause embarrassment and create expense, can not derogate either from the duty or the authority of Congress to carry out fully and fairly the plain and imperative constitutional provision for the delivery of persons bound to labor in one State and escaping into another to the party to whom such labor may be due. It is quite clear that by the resolution of Congress of March 3, 1821, the marshal of the United States in any State in which the use of the jails of the State has been withdrawn, in whole or in part, from the purpose of the detention of persons committed under the authority of the United States is not only empowered, but expressly required, under the direction of the judge of the district, to hire a convenient place for the safe-keeping of prisoners committed under authority of the United States. It will be seen from papers accompanying this communication that the attention of the marshal of Massachusetts was distinctly called to this provision of the law by a letter from the Secretary of the Navy of the date of October 28 last. There is no official information that the marshal has provided any such place for the confinement of his prisoners. If he has not, it is to be regretted that this power was not exercised by the marshal under the direction of the district judge immediately on the passage of the act of the legislature of Massachusetts of the 24th of March, 1843, and especially that it was not exercised on the passage of the fugitive-slave law of the last session, or when the attention of the marshal was afterwards particularly drawn to it. It is true that the escape from the deputy marshals in this case was not owing to the want of a prison or place of confinement, but still it is not easy to see how the prisoner could have been safely and conveniently detained during an adjournment of the hearing for some days without such place of confinement. If it shall appear that no such place has been obtained, directions to the marshal will be given to lose no time in the discharge of this duty. I transmit to the Senate the copy of a proclamation issued by me on the 18th instant in relation to these unexpected and deplorable occurrences in Boston, together with copies of instructions from the Departments of War and Navy relative to the general subject. And I communicate also copies of telegraphic dispatches transmitted from the Department of State to the district attorney and marshal of the United States for the district of Massachusetts and their answers thereto. In regard to the last branch of the inquiry made by the resolution of the Senate, I have to observe that the Constitution declares that "the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and that "he shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States," and that "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." From which it appears President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time. These words are broad enough to require a proclamation in all cases where militia are called out under that act, whether to repel invasion or suppress an insurrection or to aid in executing the laws. This section has consequently created some doubt whether the militia could be called forth to aid in executing the laws without a previous proclamation. But yet the proclamation seems to be in words directed only against insurgents, and to require them to disperse, thereby implying not only an insurrection, but an organized, or at least an embodied, force. Such a proclamation in aid of the civil authority would often defeat the whole object by giving such notice to persons intended to be arrested that they would be enabled to fly or secrete themselves. The force may be wanted sometimes to make the arrest, and also sometimes to protect the officer after it is made, and to prevent a rescue. I would therefore suggest that this section be modified by declaring that nothing therein contained shall be construed to require any previous proclamation when the militia are called forth, either to repel invasion, to execute the laws, or suppress combinations against them, and that the President may make such call and place such militia under the control of any civil officer of the United States to aid him in executing the laws or suppressing such combinations; and while so employed they shall be paid by and subsisted at the expense of the United States. Congress, not probably adverting to the difference between the militia. and the Regular Army, by the act of March 3, 1807, authorized the President to use the land and naval forces of the United States for the same purposes for which he might call forth the militia, and subject to the same proclamation. But the power of the President under the Constitution, as Commander of the Army and Navy, is general, and his duty to see the laws faithfully executed is general and positive; and the act of 1807 ought not to be construed as evincing any disposition in Congress to limit or restrain this constitutional authority. For greater certainty, however, it may be well that Congress should modify or explain this act in regard to its provisions for the employment of the Army and Navy of the United States, as well as that in regard to calling forth the militia. It is supposed not to be doubtful that all citizens, whether enrolled in the militia. or not, may be summoned as members of the posse comitatus, either by the marshal or a commissioner according to law, and that it is their duty to obey such summons. But perhaps it may be doubted whether the marshal or a commissioner can summon as the posse comitatus an organized militia force, acting under its own appropriate officers, without the consent of such officers. This point may deserve the consideration of Congress. I use this occasion to repeat the assurance that so far as depends on me the laws shall be faithfully executed and all forcible opposition to them suppressed; and to this end I am prepared to exercise, whenever it may become necessary, the power constitutionally vested in me to the fullest extent. I am fully persuaded that the great majority of the people of this country are warmly and strongly attached to the Constitution, the preservation of the Union, the just support of the Government, and the maintenance of the authority of law. I am persuaded that their earnest wishes and the line of my constitutional duty entirely concur, and I doubt not firmness, moderation, and prudence, strengthened and animated by the general opinion of the people, will prevent the repetition of occurrences disturbing the public peace and reprobated by all good men. MILLARD FILLMORE. To the Senate of the United States: WASHINGTON, February 25, 1851. I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to ratification, a convention between the United States and the Mexican Republic for the protection of a transit way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, signed in the City of Mexico on the 25th ultimo. Accompanying the treaty is a letter from Mr. P. A. Hargous, the present proprietor and holder of the privileges granted by Mexico, signifying his assent to and acceptance of the terms of its provisions. There is also an abstract of title to him from the original grantee and copies of the several powers and conveyances by which that title is derived to him. It may be well that these papers should be returned to be deposited among the archives of the Department of State. The additional article of the treaty makes an unnecessary reference to the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth articles of the treaty of the 22d of June last, because the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth articles of the present treaty contain exactly the same provisions as those contained in the same articles of that treaty, as will appear from the copy of the treaty of the 22d of June last, herewith communicated. MILLARD FILLMORE. To the Senate of the United States: WASHINGTON, February 26, 1851. I herewith communicate to the Senate, for its consideration, a convention for the adjustment of certain claims of citizens of the United States against Her Most Faithful Majesty's Government,* concluded and signed this day in the city of Washington by the respective plenipotentiaries. MILLARD FILLMORE. * Portugal. To the Senate of the United States: WASHINGTON, February 27, 1851. I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents,* in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 17th ultimo. To the Senate of the United States: MILLARD FILLMORE. WASHINGTON, February 28, 1851. In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 16th ultimo, requesting information touching the difficulties between the British authorities and San Salvador, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents which accompanied it. Hon. HOWEll Cobb, MILLARD FILLMORE. WASHINGTON, March 1, 1851. Speaker of the House of Representatives: I have the honor herewith to transmit to the House of Representatives manuscript No. 2 of the opinions of the Attorneys-General, prepared in pursuance of its resolution. MILLARD FILLMORE. To the Senate of the United States: WASHINGTON, March 3, 1851. In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 26th ultimo, calling for information respecting a forcible abduction of any citizen of the United States from the Territory of New Mexico and his conveyance within the limits of the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents which accompanied it. MILLARD FILLMORE. PROCLAMATIONS. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. A PROCLAMATION. Whereas by an act of the Congress of the United States of the 9th of September, 1850, entitled "An act proposing to the State of Texas the establishment of her northern and western boundaries, the relinquishment by the said State of all territory claimed by her exterior to said. boundaries and of all her claims upon the United States, and to establish a Territorial government for New Mexico," it was provided that the *Correspondence relative to prisoners captured by Spanish authorities at or near the island of Contoy, and to projected expeditions to Cuba. |