Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1851-03-07


one concurs As Yesterday evenings Journal "a uai |
ly paper truly remarks that tuuctionaly APP |
pears to have made no preparations to retain
his prisoner in case Of an attempt at rescue and
when a rush was made into the court room by Il
small body of unnrncd men, lnstead OF making n
minfu defence until assistance could have been
rendered bv the city police to preserve the peace
not single blow was struck. not symptom OF rc-
sstance was lnanc-ted-but the deputy malshnI
and his assistants allowed This outrage to be commit
ted in their presence, without apparently raising a
Certainlv this is what the facts in the show
The dcputy marshal was unaruIed, and unproVldcd
with rcsjIutc force. Nay when the outrage took
place. he was To QlNle his own testimony, Squcc@ed
bebjyd he green dypr.' We cannot see how any
man can defend public tunctionnry who will thus
be quietly coDped Nor IS 1t right to attempt to
shield such conduct, br tHlsely lmputing Interested
motives for the uoh-utrrrrcnce OF others An in
dlyidull vino seeks to claim ol's share OF glory,
should brara doube portion OF the shame.
might 90 on and multiply these accounts
from the various papers, aud still come back
10 the inquiry whether This is fitting or SUIT
able occasion for the exercise Of this 10 yer,
but leave the public 10 settle that question.
| said the other day that would venture to
predict that the people of Massachusetts, by
pcaccablc means, would execute the laws of
The United States. have seen nothing which
leads me to distrust this opinion, and shall
not jistrust it until | see better evidence than
any which now exists. Why, what was to
prevent the execution Of the law in this case
There was some feeling i'll relation to this law.
There WIS a dislpprobatOn IN the minds OF
many citizens: and submit to YOU, sir, w}cll-
or il would not have been prudent and proper
f,r iho United States officer to have taken some
suitable and proper means TO have defended
himself against such a gang as collected. lie
not ONLY took no means, so far as the papers
reprcscnt butthcrc was not one single effort
lnIdc. as far rs | understand, to reCupturc the
person who was rescued. Whether these facts
cast blame and rcprolch on the officers who
had chlrge of the fugitive in custody, let cvc-
nv man Judge for himself. have 10 desire TO
arraign the conduct of any one, and therefore
leave the facts as find them, t9 speak for
Gl'ln elves.
But the honorable Senator from Virginia,
Mr. Mason, says that Massachusetts should be
denounced as having failed to fulfil her federal
obligations. In whit, sir; Why. because
she pissed law ss.nc seven years ago. from
which he read paragraph or two in relation to
the use of her prisons, and the employment Of
her state officers, to execute the laws OF the
United Stltcs. But before acquleSciug in the
lustlce Of this cblrge, let Us Understand what
Mass ichU sets has done III regard to the reSt0-
ration of fugitive slaves. She undertook, like
most if not all the states. is carry out the resp
luton of Congress. passed III lI-9, mterpre-
TING the Constitution On this point She con-
sidered this clluse in the Constitution, by its
own terms, ard by the resolution Of 49, aS
imposing Il duty ON the Stale to legisatc for
the return Of fugitive slaves. She did cgislutc
for that pUrppse in cool fllth, and at the time
the Supreme Court, III Prigg Is. PcnHsyl-
vania, declared ker laws, ANA the laws Of 9th
er states HucoustItatlGna her statutes were in
II I. I 1 ,,,,l, Il g..
know. in connection with the law Of the L.
nitel States OF lob When the constitution
al authority declared tlla; she lad no power on
this subject thltsha had no right to legisate
on it, then she chlngcJ her system Of Jegjsla-
5ion.
Now. while do no. approve in my own
Judgment, tac extent ta which her act was
clrricd | must say, in reply to the Srnltor from
Nrrinil, TINT | see 40 obligation except the
obHg lton Of courtesy, on the part Of tn STATE
of Massachusetts. ia employ her officers, her
prisons or her legislation, to execute Or carry
into effect provision confined exclusively to
the United Stltcs The power of Interference,
as IA State, had been denied to her by coRpa-
tent tribunals of the country, and there were
as you know, sir, ana as others know, at that
time. other causes working, which, no doubt,
might by possibility haze cre1tcl, to some cX-
tent, spirit Of resentment; if it be -, it is to
be regretted, whltcyer, ana however the PROVO
cation. | do not think. then thl' in this there
is any proof of IA want of ATTACHING. 1t to the
Union. ornuV violation ON the plrt of the State.
other ublrato IS. The Cnitol Stltcs had said
that it " = their duty, ard ear dHty alone, 10
execute this provision of the constitution. ani
the States hive no power, 10 control over it
think that TINT wls pretty clear hint, to ~
the least, tut they would take their own busl-