Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1850-11-28

Thus il will he seen that these cunmls-
sioners have been in office for years, with
their duties prescribed by law, nearly all OF
which were of judicial character, ana tnat
this new law only imposes addItlona' auties
upon them, and authorizes the increase oil
the number. Why has not this grave con-
stiturioual question been discovered before,
and the people informed how their rights
have been outraged in violation of the
supreme law of the land? Truly, the pas
sage of the fugitive slave bill has thrown
flood Of light upon constitutional principles!
A gentleman rose and said that lie would
like 10 ask another question which was this;
II the new law was so similar to the old one
what was the necessity of passing any at
all, since the old one was still inforce
Mr.. Douglas, in reply, said, that is the
very question was anxious some one should
PROFOUND, because was DESTROYS Ot nh OPP
portunity of answering it. The old law
answered all the purposes for which it was
enacted ,olerahlv we'll until the decision by
the Supreme Court of the United States in
the case of Priggs Us. the State Of Pennsyl
vanie, eight or nine years ago. That deci-
sion rendered The law comparatively nope
rative, for the reason that there were scarcely
any officers left to execute it. 1t will be
recoIlected that the act OF 1898 imposed tie
duty of carrying it into effect upon the mag
istfates and other officers under the State
governments. These officers performed
their duties under that law with fidelity for
about fifty years, until the Supreme Court,
in the case alluded to, decided that they were
under no legal obligation TO do so. and that
Congress had no constitutional power TO i'm
pose the duty upon them From that time,
many of the officers refused to act, and soon
afterwards the legislature Of Massachusetts
and many other States passed laws making
it criminal for their officers to perform these
duties. Hence the old law, although effici-
ent in its provisions, and similar in most re-
spects, aud especially in those now objected
to-almost identical with the new law-be-
came comparatively dead letter, for want OF
officers TO carry il into effect. The circuit
and district judges of the United States were
the only officers left who were empowered to
execute il. In this State, for instance, Judge
Drummond was the only officer authorized
to try fugitive case, and resided in the ex-
trcme north west corner of the state, within
six miles of Wisconsin and three of Iowa,
and in the direction where fugitives from la
Dor were least likely TO go. liza fugitive was
arrested at Shawneetown or Alton. three or
four hundred miles from the residence OF
him across the river TO his home in keniuc-
ky or Missouri, without first establishing his
right to do so. This was calculated 10 eX-
cite uneas;ness aud doubts 10 the minds of
our citizens as 10 the propriety OF permitting
the negro to be carried out of the state with
out the fact of his owing service and having
escaped being first proved, lest il might turn
out that the negro was tree man and ;he
claimant kidnapper. And yet, according
to the express terms of the old law, the mas
ter was authorized TO seize his slave wherev.
er he found him, and TO carry him back, with>
out process, or trial. or proof of any kind
whatsoever. Hence il was necessary 10 pass
a new law, in order 10 carry into effect, in a
peaceable and orderly manner, The provisions
of the law and the constitution on the one
hand, and 10 protect the free colored man
from being kidnapped and sold into slavery
by unprinciped men on the other hand
The purpose of the new law is 10 accomplish
these two otjects-to appoint officers 10 car
ny the law into effect, IN the place of the
magistrates relieved from that duty by the
decision of the Supreme Court, and to guard
against harassing and kidnapping the free
blacks, by preventing the claimant from car,
Tying the negro out of the State until be es-
tablIshed his legal right to do so. The new
law, therefore, is great improvement in
this respect upon the old one, and is more
favorable TO justice and freedom, and better
guarded against abuse.
A person present asked leave TO PROFOUND
another question, 10 Mr.. Douglas which was
tthis: if the new law is favorable to
freedom than the old one, why did the south
.ern shareholders vote for it and desire its
passage:
Mr.. Douglas said he would answer that
question with great deal of pleasure. The
southern members voted for il for the reason
that it was better law than the old one
better for them, better for us, and better for
The free blacks Ii places the execution Of
the law in the hands Of responsible officers
of the government, instead Of leaving every
man 10 take the law into his own hands and
TO execute il for himself. Ii affords personal
security 10 the claimant while arrestlng his
servant and taking him back, by providing
him with the opportunity of establishing his
legal rights, by competent testimony, before
n tribunal duly authorized TO try the case,
and thus allays all apprehensons and sus-
picions on the part oil our citizens that he is
u villain, attempting 10 steal free man for
1.-The purpose of selling him into slavery. The
stakeholder has as strong desire to protect
ahe rights of the free black man as we have,
and much more interest 10 do so; for he well
knows If outrages are perpetrated under the
law, and freemen are seized and carried into
slavery, from that moment the indignant out
cry against II will be so strong here, and ev-
,erywhere, that even fugitive from labor
could not be returned, lest lie also might hap
pen TO be free. The interest Of the slavehol-
der, therefore, requires IA law which shall
protect the rights OF all free men, black and
white, from any Invasion or violation whatev-
.er. | ask the question, therefore, whether
this law is not better than The old one-bet-
ter for the North and the South-better for
the peace and quiet of the whole country?-
Let It be remembered that this law is but an
amendment 10 The old one, and that the old
zone still remains IN force. except so far as ii
us modified 10y this. Every mau who voted
against this modification thereby voted to
leave the old law IN force, for | am not aware
that any member OF either house of Congress
ever had the hardwood TO propose 10 repeal
the law and make no provision for carving
the constitution into effect. But the cry of
repeal as 10 the new law has already gone
forth. Well, suppose it succeeds VIVA; will
those have gained who joined in the shout ?
Have not shown that all the material obiec-
tons they urge against the new law apply
with equal force TO the old ones What do
they gain, therefore, unless they propose to
repeal the old law also, and make no
provision for carrying the constitution into
effect? This must be the object of all men
who take that position. To this it must
come in the end, and that soon. The real