The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1851-08-14

fugitive snau De returned OF mol, put Que
merely of the mode and manner of accom-
plishing this end. The Constitution says,
ono person held to labor or service in any
State, under the laws thereof, escaping into
another, shall in consequence Of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from SER
vice, but shall be delivered upon claim of
the party TO whom such labor or service is
due.' Nor is this constitutional provision
one. of an ordinary character, for we learn
Historically, by means OF the debates in the
Convention, that this provision was an ulti-
matum with a number Of States, and that
the Union never could have been formed
without il, lis apparent. therefore, that all
Congress can Do on this subject, is TO make
provision for the. efficient execution of the
Constitution, and that any law that did not
secure an easy and prompt return of the
slave 10 his master, would fall short of the
acquisitions of the Constitution. Prior TO
1898, there had been no legislation upon the
subject, and yet the right Of the owner of a
slave TO come into free State and carry off
his fugitive was not denied The Supreme
Court of The United States in the case of
Prisg VS.. The Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania, laid down the principle that the end
being required, it was for Congress 10 pro-
vide the means of obtaining it, If the Con-
sttution thus clearly intended that every iu-
gitive from labor should be returned TO his
master, we are brought TO the simple inqui-
ry, will the Legislation of Congress do this
do it efficiently, and in accordance with
the Constitution, and work no injury TO the
rights of fresmena Believing that it may
do all this, and therefore give TO our south
ern brethren the full benefit of their consti-
tutional rights on this point, / am for main
tanning the lav as ii is, and against further
Congressional agitation.
It is always unwise TO complain of evils,
without at the same time pointing 10 some
practical remedy. Those who complain OF
the fugitive slave law, should remember that
the evil which they lament is not SO much
in the law as in the Constitution from which
the law springs-that the error against which
thew declaim was more the work Of ouI
Revolutionary Fathers than of our present
Southern brethren. Nor should they forget
that il the constitutional provision were left
TO execute itself, the rendition OF the fugi-
tive would be accomplished in much more
summary mode than that pointed out by the
late Congress. The {cis,@.-. - -''i1- H's"-
come into the State, pack up his alleged fu-
gi,ive, and carry him back TO The State from
whence he fled and try him there. OF this
process there would be much more cause 10
complain than of the present law.
"Bu, have been assailed IN various quar-
,ers. and charged with having voted for the
State law of 1s47, which is calculated to IA,
,erfere with the constitutional rights oi the
south; which action, it is further alleged, is
inconsistent with my present position. 1t is
true that was member OF the Senate al
that time this law was passed but rem
ember very we'll that, as was my inciinauon
in reference TO questions which were not un-
der my charge, and which had been COM
mi,ted to the care of ADLER and more expert
enced members, took no part IN the pas
saoe Of the law. II came from the Commit
lee on the Judiciary, and was explained al.
being rendered necessary by the decision OF
the Supreme Cour: of the United States, IN
the case of Prigg u.s. this State, and circum-
stances arising therefrom. Not being law
yer, was not member of the Judiciary
Committee, and had never investigated 'he
subject sufficiently TO fully understand the
relative powers and duties OF the National
and State Governments on this subject nor
do | think that these great subjects were ev-
er raised or discussed in the passage OF this
law. There was then but little agitation m
the country on this great national question:
and the full bearing of this law may not
have been noticed by but small number Of
the members Of the Legislature. The clear
est evidence that could exist that there was
no conflict on the subject is found in the
fact of there being no roll on record. do
not however, seek 10 escape responsibility
on these gtouuds. Whatever wrong may
have grown out of this hasty legislation, |
must bear my proper share of responsibility,
and 1 am willing 10 do SO but | shall never
deny intending, by an act of mine, to inter-
fere with the constitutional rights OF the
South. But if had even favored the pas
sage OF that law, as alleged, that fact should
have no influence on my present position,
and errors thus unwittingly committed should
not be adhered 10.
nBut have not circumstances changed !
Were there not circumstances in existence
IN 1s47 which might be pleaded 10 some ell
feet, at least, in mitigation, of the error OF
the Legislature of that year, which might
have no existence at this time! think
there were. The law Of 1893, providing for
the rendition of fugitive slaves, entailed GER
tain duties on Stale officers. The Supreme
Court in the case of Prigg VS.. this State, held
The opinion that this feature of the law was
of doubtful constitutional authority-or, in
other words, that whilst these officers might
act, Congress could not require them 10 do
so. Even after that decision, the admins
tration of the law of 1898 was attended with
great Inconvenience. Claimants of fugi-
tives could only have their cases legally dis
posed OF before the United States District
Court al philadelphia or Pittsburg. This
very Inconvenience gave rise 10 the exer-
| c;sa ne v;o,ent means on the part OF claim.