Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1849-01-19
ANTI-sLAvERY BUGLE, SALEM, O.


liberties, bidding defiance TO State sover.
eighty, and legislative enactments, and
regarding with contemptall Judges Courts,
and Magistrates, Selling their victims by
the strong hand Of violence, and dragging
them from their quiet homes in the free
North into dismal, hopeless, endless
Slavery.
And yet 10 this decision the North has
bowed, and in the case OF Kirk, Judge
Edmonds, in reference 10 its authority
wiped from our Statute book a law, the
constitutionality of which had not there
tofore been questioned and now, hav-
ing yielded d%eferential obedience 10 this
Judgment Of the Supreme Court, we con.
tend hat We are p~reeminen,ly entitled TO
demand that the slave-hunters who, on
the strength oft, come here 10 seize their
prey by broad daylight in our public
thoroughfares, without even a bit Of a
warrant TO testify TO their authority
these hireling b~loodhounds for whom our
Saxon ancestors have left us no proper
name-rellows who take brides to kidnap
llelI NlClllllSs anu y W llCIl uOOul lllt
cause Of their arrest, and who, backed by
the promises ofindemnity, by their South.
ern employers, care moi what law /: they
break nor the rights Of what free citizens
they infringe-we say we have a clear,
an indubitable right 10 demand that
these parties, principals aiders and ab3t-
tors, should be held strictly within the
limits of their extraordinary authority
and that the instant they overstep these
limits and encroach upon the acknow.
lodged sovereignty of free States, and the
admitted rights Of free citizens-law, lib.
erty, right and justice having been alrea-
DIV forced 10 yield so much, shall not
voluntarily yield more but shall hold
the offenders 10 a strict, stern and unben-
ding compliance with the exact conditions
of the cruel bond eXacted from our faith
ers, and rendered doubly onerous by sub.
sequent Interpretation.
We regret therefore that the decision
Of the court left untouched the points
raised by the Counsel for the slave.
First. That the arrest ras illegal be.
cause accompanied by a breach Of the
peace, and illegal violence to a free ciii-
zen who was seized and h~andcuffed at the
same moment.
And Secondly. That even if the ar
rest were legal the master could only
hold his slave in our State for the purpose
Of immediate removal, (even if the GER
~tiicate were obiained) and that the con
cealment and detention Of Belt at Gra-
vesend for other purposes, was not only
unauthorized by the Constitution and Act
of Congress, but was a voluntary bring
ing of the boy by the master within the
operation Of the common law which re-
sumed its sway, the instant the limited
authority for recapture under the Consli-
lion was terminated, and that the slave,
by such voluntary acl, became entitled TO
his freedom precisely rs if his master
had sent him to Long Island from Balti-
more instead Of sending him there from
the city Of New York.
Whereas we understood the Court as
intima,ing that the master had a right to
recapturo him, and take him before a
magistrate under the Act OF Congress, for
the purpose of securing his return 10
Slavery, and had such a rocapture been
made ii would probably have been diff
cult successfully to establish, before a
magistrate representing the Federal Cor
ernment points, based upon the violation
of State Sovereignty, and the supremacy
of the common law, which had been thus
lightly passed over by ono OF the Judges
of New York. We cannot but think that
if Judge Edmonds had postponed the de.
cision for a day and then rendered a
written opinion, he would have defined
with a precision that might have been
useful in future cases the lines ofsepara-
lion between the expressly delegated au-
thoriiy Of the master, and the general
supremacy ofthe common law.