The republic., 1851-04-09
The Fugitive Law In B0st0n-Ths Conapr0
mise and the Abolitionists.

mise ana tne ADouuonAotss n
The Abolitionists and Disunionists have taken
the ground that no Federal law, to which any
portion of the people is opposed, can be exc
cuted in any one of the States. This we un-
derstand to be the position of Mr.. RHErr and
Mr.. CHASE, and the parties which they respec-
lively represent. The result of such doctrines
of course is that there is such thing as gov
ernment, and that organized society is at the
mercy of any mob Of rufians whJ may get to-
gether to impede the execution of the laws.
The expression of such sentiments in the SEN
ate Of the United States has tended to produce
the consequences foretold. Seditious speeches
in Congress have been responded to by seditious
harangues among the people, and seditious ar
ticles in the newspapers. lnflammatory decla-
nations against the Fugitive Slave law, and
against the constitutional provision for the sur
render of fugitives from labor-articles denounc
ing the Constitution as an ''atrocious bargain"
and as Compact with help'-have led to the
adoption of resolutions by public meetings, Of
white citizens and blacks, to the effect that,
laws and constitutions notwithstanding, these
fugitives shall not be delivered up. We ap-
prehend that recent affairs in Boston, as
they have come to us in the details of the
newspapers, are of character to convince
all prudent, patriotic, and good men that the
fanaticism of Abolition can no longer be trifled
with or pandered to; and that there must be 4
broad and impossible gulf between the enc
mics Of the Compromise and the friends Of the
Administration. The men who are disposed
to join hands with the PHnLIpsEs, CoLvERs,
PARKERs and GARRIsoNs, and to lend them
the aid and encouragement of their sympa-
thizing sentiments and opinions, must expect
to be denounced and stigmatized as the nature
Of their associations demands.
We confess frankly that we can see no dif
ference in principle between the men who in
dulge in daily denunciation of law of the
land as unpopular, unchristian, and uncon-
stitutional; who revile preachers of the gospel
for discountenancing reasonable resistance to
it; and who malign and traduce the Admins
tration which advises peaceful obedience; we
can see no difference between such men and
those factionsts and fanatics who call upon
the colored men of the North TO 'fill their
knapsacks with powder, load their pistols,
and buckle on their swords, and be in read
mess for whatever may take place." The
course Of the former Is calculated, if not de-
signed, to produce the same consequences that
are contemplated by the latter class. They
mean the same thing, but they do not express
it SO boldly. They are more dangerous, be-
cause they omit distinctly to recommend what
they indirectly encourage. If they would
speak out what they insinuate, it would revolt
the moral sense of the community, and disarm
them Of their capacity for mischief. How
much farther does that man 60 who advises re-
sistance to the Constitution, than he who de-
nounces ii as an "atrocious bargain 2" 1t is a
duty to resist what is atrocious. So, if the
Constitution is Compact with hell" it is
obviously compact that ought to be broken,
and one which it must be meritorious to resist
with violence, and even to the DEATH
In this view OF the subject, we cannot SYM
pathiZe with those journals which are denounc-
ing the Administration for seeking every proper
occasion to indicate their determination to stand
by the Compromise; by filling their offices with
men willing to adhere toit; by Withdrawing their
confidence from men who are known 10 de-
nounce and oppose it; and by Withdrawing the
publication Of the laws from the papers thai
seek to irrtate and infame the public mind
by their daily sneerng, bitter invectyes against
the friends Of the Union and the friends Of the
Adjustment. The official publication of the
laws Is important only as mark Of confidence
and sympathy. 1t is usually given to journals
whose policy corresponds with that Of the Ad-
ministration, that the country may know where
to look for the views and purposes Of the
Executive Government. If, under these cir
cumstances, the Administration should recon-
mend one course in its official acts and
State papers, and indicate another and very
different course in the public journals supposed
to be in its confidence, it is clear that they
would be liable to the charge of speaking with
two toDOues or Of abandoninU bv implicrtiOn