Thank you, that was exactly the point.
This is the very interesting part:
Nor does it matter that the rule to which I have adverted as being exclusive of the right of the States to legislate upon the provision does not appear in it. It is exactly to such cases that the rule applies, and it must be so applied unless the contrary has been expressly provided.
Doesn't matter? Says who? What happened to the 'things that are not included are therefore excluded' rule?
It was there in 1835
that the law of the United States was constitutional; that the slave was not entitled to trial by jury, or by any other mode different from that prescribed by the law of congress; and he was accordingly taken back to Virginia. This was the unanimous opinion of the court.
PRESCRIBED. Past tense. If the judge meant 'as may be' proscribed by Congress, that would have been what he said.
What was prescribed by Congress and agreed to by all the States?
and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing or being within the state, or before any magistrate of a county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate,
Fugitive Slave Act of 1793
ANY recognized legal entity. Federal, State local could make the determination right there....period.
-----
There was a reason the Founders put that Article under the States and it is NOT enumerated under the powers of Congress, as there was no way for the federal government to feasibly enforce it.
The federal government assumed a jurisdiction it never possessed, and drove another nail in the Constitution.
I find it interesting how similar the arguments are for Prigss vs. Pennsylvania and the Obama administration arguments re: Arizona SB1070. Just as the southern slave power wanted no state officials mucking with their slave catchers, the Obama administration doesn’t want state officials reporting illegals to the federal government. Of course they will be fingerprinted first, and if an illegal commits a crime after release by the federals, it will look bad.
Perhaps it would have been better if the slave power had accepted local rules of civil procedure in return for local state help.
In Pennsylvania in Priggs, it seemed that the rules were to establish if the person in question was legally a slave. Rules banning or punishing perjury would seem to support that. I don’t see how the young child of the woman would be legally returned to Maryland, having been born in a free state, and never been a slave. If it was me, I would have convicted Priggs on kidnapping for that, at least. I would have been also interested in understanding how many state officials he had sought help from before deciding to violate Pennsylvania law.
So in 1834 Jack v. Martin overturned federal law at the request of the slave power, and thus states wrote state procedural protections for the process, then in 1842 Priggs v Pennsylvania overturned state procedural protections at the request of the slave power were overturned, so the state wrote procedures to require state noninterference. Then the slave power complained about that.
See the problem was the slave owners wanted to run not just their states, but also the other states. Eventually that didn’t work because the free states were more numerous, and the slave economy was limited by its demand that slaves be kept ignorant. When the slave power realized their fecklessness, they resorted to the unconstitutional remedy of unilateral secession, and then started a war, which they lost.