Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1850-12-12
Slavery and the Constitution.
NUMBER THREE,

4" No person held to service or labor III one
State, under the laws thereof, escaping intoah-
other. shall, in consequence of any law or reg
ulation therein, be discharged from such ser
vice or labor, but shall be delivered up on
claim of the party, TO whom such service OF
labor maybe DUE t15 A asa
The section is doubtless applicable TO other
cases as well as that of runaway slaves-such
as apprentices and others bound to service for
4 term of years-and because the term slaves
is not employed, some few have commended that
it has and can have no possible reference to
them. 1t is not a little surprising that any
body should attempt to maintain position so
entirely groundless; but | recollect once to
have heard very intelligent gentleman con-
tend publicly with great carnes,uess. and al
most ,ciih apparent seriousness, that THIS pro-
vision was not intended 10 be applied to slaves.
And what is more, he referred boldly 10 the
Madison Papers as proving the fact =
Whereas, in point of fact, the "Madlson Pa
pers" prove exactly the contrary. No man OF
sense can study those papers without Percelv-
lHH ut WIZ tilC OldtSS III tuNStiOh nus I"
pecidi reference TO the case of runaway slaves
and was introduced and adopted for the express
purpose of securing 10 the master tho right to
reclaim and recover his Ascending slave, when
escaped beyond the jurisdiction under which he
had been held. That this was the intent and
object of the provision, no honest ,well-intormed
person can seriously question. And this being
so, no objection ought to be raised to the enact
ment of a la,r for carrying it into effect, agree
ably to its true and obvious import and mean
ing. The objection, if any, should, in such
case, be made against the Constitution itself,
and not against the law-provided always that
the law does no more than carry out fairly and
honestly the constitutional provision. But if
under pretence of giving effect to the clause in
question, a law were TO be enacted which in
vaded the rights of the citizen, or 'renched up
on the sovereignty of the States, in manner,
and 10 an extent not contemplated by the Con-
stitution, then indeed the case is wholly
changed For the Constitution can never BY
any fiction be made responsible for objectona-
bic features in law, which ii neither requires
nor contemplaies. ..u
What then does the constitutional provision
in question, fairly interpreted, contemplate,
and what does it require,
In the first place, it obviously contemplates
slaves in one sense as mere propafy-and, re-
IL. ~, ,b,t Eubt - ,pia IL 80,
guard and secure the owners of this property
against adverse legislation, and adverse popu-
lar sentiment, in those States which raintain
different doctrine, and are utterly opposed to
the institution of slavery. 1t recognizes in
each State the right 10 regulate and determine
for itself what shall, within lis own jurisdic-
ton, be regarded as property, and what shall
not. And inasmuch as, in certain of the States
slaves were by law held as property, the tenure
of which property was rendered peculiarly pre-
carious by the proximity of free States, it I'M
dertook to provide that it should not be sacri-
feed by the mere escape Of the slave into free
territory-but that, on claim being preferred
by a master TO an alleged slave, backed by good
and sufficient proof that under the laws of the
State in which he resided, the claim was valid,
the said slave should be delivered up as his
property The amount and kind of proof to be
required in such cases is not stated, nor is the
nature and character of the tribunal defined,
which is 10 pass npon them. Of course they
ought 10 be reasonable, and such as beft the
solemnity Of the occasion, and the magnitude
of the interests involved And what cause can
be more solemn, what more momcntous, than
that which is to decide whether mans liber-
ty, his right to himself, shall be preserved to
him. or he be sent into perpetual and hopeless
bondagel Should not the tribunal in such a
case be august, and the proof required irrefrag-
able,
Again, independently of the provision in
question, it would be the right and the duty of
each State sacredly TO guard and protect the
liberty of every human being residing within
its jurisdiction To certain extent then, the
clause in question is in derogation of state SOW
both these reasons is to be construed not hber-
ally but strictly. For these reasons too, both
it, aud the cases under it, are unfit to be turn
ed over to, and adjudicated upon by tribunal
unknown TO the Constitution, and by ''officers'
so ''inferior as,-save and except this-to be
interested with no Judicial function whatever.
The question has been started, whether I'M
der the Constitution the children of fugitive
slaves, born in free State, are required TO be
given up. A moments consideration howev-
or, would seem to be sufficient to settle that
question. ''Persons held to service or labor
in one State" and Escaping into another
they, and they alone, are required to be given
up. Clearly, then, until it can be shown that
the children il question have escaped from a
State where they owed service into another,
they are ty no means the subjects Of This pro-
vision. 1t is personal matter wholly-and,
TO renser anyindividual liable under this clause
two things must concur and be proved, viz
that he or she owed service in another State,
and has escaped therefrom And so long as
there has been no escape, the question of owing
or not owing service is wholly immaterial
What now shall be said of the legislation Of
some States making it penal for their officers
to lend their aid as such in the rendition Of fil-
gitve slaves under law of the United States,
and denying too the use of their prisons for