Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1843-03-03
NuNfBER IL.
FUGITIVE SLA YES.

the people Of the different States in regard
to fugitive slaues. BY the common tar,
and the law Of nations, "a SldUe became ab-
solutely free By entering the territory Of a
free Stdte or Government : whether he did
so by consent of his master, or by escaping
from his masters custody. Ii was foreseen
that, if this principle of the common law
remained in force, SELF emancipation would
deprive the slave States of an institution
which they regarded as important to their
prosperity A member from South Caro-
lima moved an amendment to the Constr
tuition, requiring Jagitire sldoes and ser
rants to be delivered up like criminals This
was objected to by members from Pennsyl-
vania and Connecticut, for the reason that
it would involve the people of the free States
in the expense of slavery-vlde Sd volume
Madison Papers, 1447. An amendment
was subsequently adopted, in the form in
which it is now found in the last clause OF
the LIST section of the 4th article, which
provides, that mo person held to service or
labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
cscapingiinto another, shall, in consequence
of any law or regulation therein, be diSch0r-
red from such service or labor, &c. BY this
provision the common law as ii then stood,
was changed so far as the United States
were concerned, so that slave ESCAPING
10 free State did not thereby become free.
Under this provision Congress passed the
law of l793 requiring certain officers OF
the State and Federal Governments to act
when fugitive slaves were brought before
them and it was supposed by our people
yeneraly, that we were bound to aid the
master in recapturing his fugitive slave
This has led many of our people to believe
the subject of fugitive slaves to form an ex-
ception to the doctrine laid down in my
first number. But the subject came before
the Supreme Court of the United States at
their last session, in the case Prigg VS.. the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it was
decided, on solemn argument, that no
State officer was obliged to act in such a
case, and that so much of said law as re-
quired them to act was uncOnStitutiondt.-
In this manner the doctrine laid down in
any last communication was confirmed by
the Supreme Court of the United States, in
regard to fugitive slapes There were many
other important points decided in that case,
from which the following principles are de-
duced
"A slave. by escaping TO free State, ac-
quires important rights and privileges. =
When he reaches our territory we regard
him as man, and not as property. If he
work for me, or sell me property, he may
sue me in his own name, and collect his
pay. Neither |, nor any other man, ex-
cept his master, can take advantage of his
having been slave If any person attempt
to arrest him, as slave, without process
he may defend himself, with just so much
force as becomes necessary TO protect his
person and personal liberty. In this respec,
he enjoys the same rights and privileges
which our citizens possess. He is liable to
be arrested, and taken, back to slavery by
his former master-in all other respects he
is regarded in law as a freeman. While in
slave State he may not resist the violence
of his master, by an act of self-defence; il
he do so, he may be instantly slain by his
master, or otherwise severely punished I'M.
der the laws of such State. 1t is this law
declaring it criminal in him to defend hi:
person against the violence of his master
which constitutes SLAVERY. That law can
have no operation in our State. The slave
therefore, by escaping from slave State,
escapes from the operation of that law
Its penalties cannot be visited upon him for
an act done in Ohio. There is no such law
here, nor is it in the power of our Legis-
lature to enact such a law. Our Constitu-
ton forbids its existence.
The court, in the case referred to- ex.
pressly decided that the jurisdiction is YES
ted solely in Congress; that the passing o.
a law upon the subject by Congress, is con-
elusive that the master shall have the benefit
conferred by the act; and that no State
law can be interposed to qualify or change
the powers given by Congress They fur
Their decided, that it was equally plain that
Congress intended that the master should
have no other Orfnrther facilities for cap
turing his slave than those expressed in the
law of Congress- and therefore, no State
law can add to the powers conferred in the
act of 1893. 1t, therefore, follows, that he
may defend himself against his master while
in this State, for the obvious reason that self
defence is natural right, and there is no
law having force within the State of Ohio,
which forbids its exercise If his master
attempt to arrest him, the slave may defend
himself with so much force as may be nee
essary to protect his person and liberty. II
the master press upon him, and it becomes
necessary for his protection, he may kill his
master, or the agents of his master, be they
many or few, without inquiring whether they
come from slave State, or be citizens Of
Ohio. 1t is important that our people
should distinctly understand, that, if they
volunteer to arrest fugitive slave, they do
SO at their peril. speak with confidence
on this point. There is nothing in the act
Of Congress forbidding the slave to exercise
his natural right in sclf-defence nor does
Is mention any penalty for doing so. The
act treats him as property merely, and visits