Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1851-10-04


port of but three Northern Senators, and 81
Northern Members. But had the North given
such united support as their fathers gave it surely
could have been considered no concession to pro-
vide for the execution of distinct provision in the
compact by which the States are united. The ne
cessity for such law is melancholy proof of
the extent to which some Of the States disregard
a distinct obligation imposed upon them by the
| Constitution. For it is only when they are re-
gardless of that obligation, that it can be neces-
sary to call in the power of the Federal Govern
ment to legislate upon it. Yet We are turned aside
from this consideration by the still more melan-
choly fact that the law is delayed and ebstructed,
even violently resisted, by mobs, sometimes wrung
and tortured from its meaning and its purpose, by
judicial officers, to whom the property holder
looks for the maintenance of his right. In the
Northern States there seems to be two great di-
visions upon the question of the restitution of flu
gitive slaves-the one who would resist the execu-
ton of the law, the other who would acknowledge
Its binding force as a law Of the land-but there
seems to be no party which justifes it upon its
merits or who declares themselves in favor of it
as an original measure The cry of repeal is an
swered by the proposition to modify.
Taking Mr. Webster as exponent Of that
class who would neither resist the law NOR repeal
it, we are not left in doubt to the character OF
the modification which they propose. The bill,
introduced by him into the Senate, a short time
before he left it, and to which he has referred in
recent speech, as indicating his view of the sub
Ject required jury trial at the place where the
fugitive slave might be arrested. Such a modih-
cation would utterly destroy the efficacy of the
law, and to my mind be more Objectionable and Of
fensive than It's repeal.
| contributed whatever ability Lpossessed, to
perfect and secure the passage of the fugitive
slave law of 1850; seeking to make it as effectual
as the power of Congress, and the spirit of.the
Constitution would permit opposed the at
tempt to engraft upon the bill a provision which
would have made the treasury of the United
States responsible for slaves, the delveryof whom
should be prevented by mob, because | consider
ed the compact to require the delivery of the
property, and that there authority in the
Constitution which would justify Congress in-tax-
ing the people to pay for property which should
be lost by failure to execute that Constitutional
duty; and further, because | believed, Instead oil
promoting the restitution of the property it would
lead to the reverse result, and become species OF
emancipation of slaves in the border States, by
general taxation | did not expect that the law
would effect everything which would.be desired
| could not with the evidences around me expect
that it would be faithfully observed. My zeal in
its support, was rather due to the value | attached
to the recognition of the principle it contained,
and for which, Though of every little pecuniary
advantage to us, | am now in favor of insisting
ON the preservation of the law in all its essential
features
The only measure which the tsGompronaise'
Committee originated, and Judging from its char
acter we may rejoice they did originate but one,
was the bill in relation to the slave. trade in the
District of Columbia, which | considered gross
usurpation of power by the Federal Government
for which, not even the much abused plea of ne
cessty can be offered in palliation
In 1870 tbo Govorpp,oot retaiDad his
Etrict of Columbia only that territory which haC
been ceeded by Maryland BY law of Congress:
passed in 1901, the laws of Maryland. which exis
ted prior to the cesson, put IN force IN tina
portion of the District which had been received
from Maryland. The Maryland law of 179t
therefore prevented slaves from being introduced
into the District for sale from any other place than
the State of Maryland, and the trade thus res
tricted so far from being an evil, the increase o
which requires legislation, had from other causes
so far diminished, that Mr.. Mason, the Chairman
of the Committee on the District of Columbia
made the following statement to the Senate. Du
ring the discussion of this bill he sad on the 4tl
of September 1851: 81 am informed, upon en-
qulry, that the fact is, that within thelast few
years so few slaves were brought into this the Dis
trct for SALE for the purpose of expectation tina
the trade or business which some persons engage
in, of purchasing slaves for purpose of selling
them again, mas GWlndled down until IL mas al
f most ceased to have an existence Had the pow
er then existed to pass such law as that to which
| have referred, there was no exigency which
called for its exercise.
= 1t has. however, sometimes, been stated tina
Congress but re-enaeted the law of Maryland ant
enforced in the District the policy of the~State-
Il This is very far from true. Thel law of Maryland
was in force, and the bill was to take from citizen
: of Maryland the right they had previously enjoy
ed, to bring slaves into the County of w ashing
ton as to. any of the counties of Maryland. sTh
2 Maryland law of 96, like the Virginia law of '92
f was to sustain the policy Of those States agans
the further increase of slave population, and Tin
like the Congressional actof 1850, was not direct
f ed against commerce in slaves. They were pass
ed before the constitutional prohibition against tn
further prohibition of Africans, went into effec
and when the Northern States were adopting tn
policy of emancipation, and though generalin thei
provisions, there is reason to believe were mainl
: intended to check the influx of slaves from tn
S emancipating States, and to prevent the furthe
importation of Africans. In support of this view
e we find that in 1919 Virginia repealed her act
: 1899. and permitted the introduction of slave
\ born within the United States, and the positio
= was taken during the debate of the Senate, with
= out being contradicted, that no prohibition no
: existed in the State Of Maryland against the intro
n duction of slaves from any other State of ii
e Union Not only, then- was the legislation
+ Congress dictated by different motive from tn;
e of the States which made the cession, but was OF
! posed to their present policy. The power of
d sovereign State to pass such law is no evidenc