Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-01-11
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.

General KIMBERLY, clear-headed lawyer OF
loxg experience-a calm, dspassionate mdn-who
was once elected 10 the United States Senate' but
declined on account of feeble health, new hapfiy
restored, made fe following statement in regard to
The Fugitive Slave Law, at the Union meeting In
New Havea, Conn., of which he was the presiding
officer:
amined somewhat critically and carefully and declare
cannot fied-soy find ta all the abuse that has
been aborossy hesPed upon il can be justified: DO not
believe is. app ehend there rs an honest msaPPenen
sion in eegarso the provisions Of the law. hiEk is not
understood. fear there ktle too much disposition not
to know. ItKnay not be So
In place. entertain doxbt II waB the duty Of
Congress to pass some law more esctuaiy securing the
Souths constitutional righs-ghs by the Consiie-
lion, which is the law of the land. have no doubt was
the duyo Congress- IegIte this subject as the ext
genccs of the time required. The duty wss early reoeg.
missed I'M E93 four years ser the adoption o. the Consu
toe law Of Congress Rasmade, in principle the
that Of fs5Oin detail lnot full But aPPrehend, on an
examination and comparison Of the two laws, ,cW
kat tie ,c Of '93 fairly subject TO more cofaplain, to
gxo:v objection, than We latD 1850. I5eepe to5e
But the law Of 93 ws two particulars undoubted
iydeSves and henc NE necessity Of revision Of the law
by tic Congress now i'd session The law of 93 desosed
upoA the State massstes the duty ofu execuionupon
Justices Of the peace. Experience has shown, to be sure
that cur werein this respect incorrect In fs42 the
Supreme Court Of the United States in acting upon ques-
tcn regarding this matter, then before them, did intimate
whether Congress had odeyove this duty upon
state magistrates DO understand it decided they
had the power but doubt is expressed, which made it
dead letter. II had vitality, youw by eIam-
nation Of the subject became necessary 10 provide some
oher buna hence by the act of 1850, power given to
judicial officers provided by Congreasmen Of earning men
of legal talents competent to the law. In this
iculr 1t is greatly smpyoped So in another respect By
the law Of 9s. the individual MASTER his sgen and this
recogntion Of acommon law prncipe) had right to
seize his fugitive and him to hepce from whence he
came. Igave him legal aid. He obliged to resort
physical force This opened the way for disturbances i
somewhat endangered the rights Of the free and involved
him, as it might be- and indeed it sometimes was, in the
dilemma with the fugitive. The law Of 1850 has very
wisely provided a in the first instance the claimant may go
before the proper magistrate obtain directed
U. S. Marshal, higher and important ocer other
known Officer who is required toexeeute the pecept
ably in the execution Of his duties officer Is not this
great improvement? Does it add greatly to the
iy Of the proposed fugitive No doubt such is its charac
ter. But do not propose to 60 into details i have not
here to justify the law in all its Details but cannot
justify the abuse that is heaped upon it. wish every indi-
vdua who deres information would take the two acts and
compare them. think may say with olerable degree Of
confidence, you will find the act of 1850 Objectionable
| as you may have been led to suppose" :-