In 1837 the Governor of Georgia made requisition upon the Governor of
Maine for the return to the former state of the captain of a ship
charged with aiding and abetting a slave to desert his master. The
Governor of Maine refused to comply with the requisition, alleging
that the laws of that state did not recognize slavery or the offense
complained of as an indictable one. Thereupon the Legislature of
Georgia petitioned Congress to enact some law to compel state
authorities to comply with this provision of the Federal Constitution.
No action, however, was taken by Congress, nor was the slave or his
abductor ever carried back to Georgia.[303]
In 1841 the Governor of Virginia made requisition upon the Governor of
New York for the return of two men indicted in the former state for
aiding and enticing slaves to leave their masters. William H. Seward
was at that time Governor of New York. He refused to honor the
requisition, alleging that the offense for which the parties were
indicted was not one deemed criminal by the laws of New York or the
nations of the world. A long and peace-destroying controversy in which
the Legislatures of the two states became involved followed; but the
fugitives were never returned, and the people of Virginia felt that
the highest law officer of a sister state had been recreant to his
obligations to the Federal Constitution and reckless of the rights of
their state.
In 1860, the Governor of Kentucky made requisition upon the Governor
of Ohio for the return to the former state of a fugitive from justice
indicted for the violation of a statute imposing penalties upon
persons aiding slaves to escape from their masters. The Governor of
Ohio refused to honor the requisition; thereupon the State of Kentucky
instituted a suit in the Supreme Court of the United States against
the Governor of Ohio, to compel him to comply with the provision of
the Federal Constitution above referred to and deliver up the fugitive
from justice.
The Governor of Ohio interposed as a defense the same reasons advanced
by Governor Seward. But the Supreme Court of the United States held
that the defense was insufficient, and that it was the constitutional
duty of the Governor of Ohio to deliver up the fugitive. The court
declared: "The objection made to the validity of the indictment is
altogether untenable."[304] The court also decided that the suit was
properly instituted, in the right forum, and that the Governor of Ohio
was under constitutional obligations to deliver up the fugitive to the
authorities of Kentucky, but that no judgment could be entered by the
court granting the relief prayed for. Chief Justice Taney, speaking
for the court, after alluding to the fact that the framers of the
constitution confidently believed that "A sense of justice and of
mutual interest would insure a faithful execution of the provision,"
declared: "If the Governor of Ohio refuses to discharge this duty
there is no power delegated to the General Government, either through
the judicial department or any other department, to use any coercive
means to compel him."[305]