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]]
EFFECTS IN VIRGINIA OF NULLIFICATION
This decision brought home to the people of Virginia the fact that the authorities of certain of the Northern States were violating their obligations under the Federal Constitution, and yet the Federal Government was unable to remedy the wrong and maintain the rights of the injured commonwealths.
These conditions and the attitude of the Northern States which thus nullified the provisions of the Federal Constitution undoubtedly moved thousands of Virginians and other citizens of the South to secession. They refused to remain members of a Union in which the rights of their states were thus violated by their sister commonwealths.
But the claim that Virginia seceded in order to avert pecuniary loss resulting from the non-return of fugitive slaves is negatived by the fact that by such action she surrendered all the benefits from the Federal Constitution and statute. In the Union, some protection was secured to the state with respect to the rights thus menaced. Outside of the Union, every such benefit was lost, and the state stood absolutely without redress.
| [294] | See Decision in Case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539. |
| [295] | Fugitive Slaves, McDougall, p. 66. |
| [296] | In re Sherman M. Booth, 3rd Wisconsin Rep., p. 13. |
| [297] | Ableman vs. Booth and United States vs. Booth, 21st Howard, p. 506. |