The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-02-14

their pAsslOns w ny, SIT, lntTe mas D. en- no
time in my public life-in which statement con-
cur with what was said the other day by he hon
orabe Senator from Alabama, Mr.. King l--there
has been no time of my public life that was not
willing for one, TO cooperate in any steps for the
abolition of the slave trade in the District of Co
lumbia | was willing TO do 80 while the other
portion of the District. south Of the Potomac re-
NAMED attached and there is still less ground
for objection now that that large portion of the
District has been retroceded to Virginia, and
when the motive or reason for concentrating
slaves here in depot, for the purpose of transport
ing them to distant foreign markets is lessened
to the extent of the diminution of the territory,
by the act of retrocession. Why should the
slave traders who buy their slaves in Maryland
or Virginia, come here with them, in order TO
transport them to New Orleans or other Southern
markets. Why not transport them in the States
in which they are purchased Why should the
feelings of those who are outraged by the scenes
that are exhibited, by the eort6gss which pass
along our avenues Of manacled human beings
not collected in our own District, nor in our own
neighborhood but brought from distant portions
of the neighboring Ststes-why should the feel
ngs of those who are outraged by such scenes
who are unable TO contemplate such spectacle
without horror-why should they be thus outra-
ged by the continuance of trade 80 exception.
repeat, neither from one class of the States nor
the other. 1t is an object upon which both of
them, it seems to me, should readily unite, and
which one set of States as well as the other should
rejoice TO adopt inasmuch it lessons by one, the
causes of irritation and discomfort which exist as
connected with this subject.
Abolish the slave trade within the District of
Columbia, reassert the doctrine of the resolution
of 1888, that by nm implied obligation, on the
part Of Congress- slavery ought not to be abolished
within the District of Columbia, so long as il re-
mains in the State of Mary and-reassert the
principle of that resolution, and adopt the other
measures proposed in these resolutions, or some
other similar measures-fOr am not attached to
anything as the production of my own mind, and
am quite willing to adopt ms cad, the better sug-
gestions of any body else-adopt these similar
measures, and venture to predict that. instead
OF the distractions and anxieties which now pre-
vail we shall have peace and quiet for thirty
years hereafter, such as followed the disposition
of the same exciting and unhappy subject after
the Missouri Compromise.
The next resolution, sir, is as follows:
7. Resolred, That more effectusl provision
ought TO be made by law, according to the require
mtnt of the Constitution, for the restitution and
delivery of persons bound to service or labor in
any State who may escape into any other State or
Territory of this Union.
Well, Mr.. President, upon this subject 20
with him who goes furthest in the Interpretation
Of that clause in the Constitution which relates
TO this subject In my humble opinion, sir that
is a requirement. by the Constitution of the Uni
ted States, which is not limited in it's operation to
the Congress of the United States but which ex-
tends to every State in the Union and to the Of
fcers of every State in the Union. And one
step further. 1t extends to every man in the
Union, and devolves upon him the obligation to
assist in the recovery of fugitive slave from labor,
who takes refuge in or escapes into one of the
free States And, sir, | maintain all this by
fair Interpretation of the Constitution. The
clause is as follows;
"No person held to service or labor in one
State under the laws thereof, escaping into
other shall, in consequence of any law or regula-
ton therein, be discharged from such service or
labor, but shall be delivered up claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may be due
1t will be observed, Mr.. President, that this
clause in the Constitution is not amongst the emu
merated powers granted to Congress-where, if it
had been placed, it might have been argued that
Congress alone can legislate and carry 1t into eff
fect-but it is one Of the general powers or one
of the general rights secured by this Constitu-
ton or instrument, and it addresses itself to all
who are bound by the Constitution Of the United
States Now, sir the officers of the General Gov
eminent are bound to take an oath to support the
Constitution Of the United States. All State Of
icers are required by the Constitution to take an
oath to support it, and all men who love their
country and are obedent to its laws are bound
TO assist in the execution of these laws whether
fundamental or derivative. do not say, sir, that
private individual is obliged to make the tour
of his whole State, in order to assist the owner
Of slave to recover his property hut do say,
il he is present when the owner of slave is
about to assert his rights and regain possession Of
his property, that he, that every man present,
whether officer or agent of the State Govern
ments or private individual is bound to assist in
the execution of the laws of their country. What
is the provision? Ii is, that such fugitive shall
be delivered up on claim Of the party 10 whom
such service or labor may be due" l have al
ready remarked in the course of debate upon the
bill which is now pending upon this subject, that
the terms used in regard to fugitives from GRIM
inal offences and fugitives from labor, are pre-
csely the same. The fugitive from justice is to
be delivered up, and removed to the State having
jurisdiction The fugitive from labor is to be de
livered mp on claim Of the party to whom such
service is due Well, sir has it ever been con-
tended, by any State, that she is not bound to sur
render fugitive from Justice, upon the demand of
the State from which he has fled think there
have been some exceptions to the performance
of this duty enjoined in the Constitution, but
they have not denied the general right and if
they have refused, in any instance, TO give up the
persons demanded, it has been upon some techni-
cal or legal ground, not at all questioning the
general right to have the fugitive surrendered on
the application to deliver him up, as eno joined by
the Constitution
| think Mr. President that with regard to the
object of this provision, there can he no doubt
1t imposes obligation upon the States-free or
slaveholding-it imposes an obligation upon the
officers of Government, State or Federsl-and
add, upon the people of the United States, under
particular circumstances-tO assist in the recov-
cry and surrender of fugitive slaves from their
masters There has been some confusion, and
think, misconception, upon this subject, in conse
quence of a recent decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States | think that decision has
been entirely Inexperienced. There is a vast
difference between imposing impediments and af-
fording facilities in the way of recovering he fu
gtive slave The Supreme Court of the United
States have only decided that the laws of imped-
iment are unconstitutional ! know, sir, there
are some general expressions in the opinions to
which | have referred-the case of Maryland and
nsylvania-that would seem to import other
wise but think that when you come attentively
to read the whole opinions pronounced by the
Judges and take the trouble that | have taken
to converse with the Judges themselves, you will
find that the whole extent Of the authority that
they intended to adopt was, that any laws of inn
pediment enacted by the States, were laws forbid
den by the provision Of the Constitution to which
have referred, and that the General Govern
ment had no right to impose obligations upon the
State officers that were not imposed by the au-
thority of their own constitutional laws. Why
it is impossible! II the decision had been other
wise, it would have been extrs-judical The
Court has no right to decide whether the laws of
facility were were not unconstitutional. The
only question before the Court asupon the laws
of mpediment, passed by the Legislature of
Pennsylvania. II they have gone beyond the
case before them, to decide upon case not before
them, the decision is what lawyers call "obln