Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1848-03-08

to the above, but those already cited are
deemed amply sufficient TO sustain the po-
siton that slave on entering our State
becomes tree and entitled to the protection
of our laws.
This general principle is subject to but
one exception and that is contained in
Art 4th Sec, Of the Constitution Of the
United States, mo person held to service
or labor in one State under the laws there
of, escaping into another, shall, in conse-
quence Of any law or regulation therein,
be discharged from such service or labor,
but shall be delivered up on the claim Of
the party to whom such service or labor
may be DUE On this clause of the Con-
stitution the Court in the case in Massa-
chusetts above cited say, 1.-The constitu-
ton and law manifcstly refer to the case
Of slave escaping from State where
he owes service or labor, into another State
or territory. This language can by no
reasonable construction be applied to the
case Of slave who has not fled from the
State, but who has been brought into the
State by his MASTER. In Exparte Sim
mons 4 Wash. G. C. r. 396, it was held
..that both the constitution and laws Of the
United States apply only to fugitives, esca-
ping from one State and fleeing to anoth-
er, and not to the case of slave volunta-
rily brought by his master" The case of
fugitive slaves is the only exception 70 the
general principle that slavery cannot exist
within our State, and it is not within the
power ofCongress or of our State Legisla-
ture to create another. The attempt Of the
legislature of1831 to create another excep-
ton by permitting Shareholders to pass thro'
our State with their slaves, is an usurpa-
ton of authority in direct violation of our
constitution. If citizen Of Kentucky
visits our State he is entitled to all the priv
ileces and immunities of a citizen Of this
State and no more. A citizen of Indian a
cannot hold slaves single moment tor
any purpose, neither can citizen of Ken
lucky within the jurisdiction Of our State.
with the one exception of fugitives from
labor. II it were not for the clause in the
constitution of the United States even flu
citive slaves would be free as soon they
would enter our State, it is only by virtue
of that clause that they can be recaptured
on our soil 1t may be said that as we re-
cognize the validity Of other relations. such
as marriage, although contracted beyond
the limits of our State and in accordance
with laws wholly variant from ours, why
should we not extend the same comfy to
the relation Of master and slave. There
is material difference between recogni-
ling the relation of husband and wife or
parent and child and that OF master and
slave. The two former relations are nat
ural and social, they existed among all
nations anterior to, and Independent Of
loo al law, but slavery is creature of mu-
nicipal law and has no foundation in the
law of nature. In addition to this it is
repugnant to our constitution, opposed to
our public policy and contrary to moral
ity.
might add many considerations, in ia
vor of the position assumed, to those al
ready adduced, but my remarks have now
reached an unreliable length. S.
Centreville, Ia