Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1851-01-23
The Fugitive Slave Law.

Gen. Kimberly, clear headed lawyer of
long expe rience, calm, dispassionate man.
was once elected 10 the U. S. Senate, but
declined on account of feeble health, now
happily restored, made the following State
ment of the Fugitive Slave Law, at the In
Ion meeting in New Haven, Of which lie was
'ne presiding officer:
"isn TO say one word in regard TO the
T.. nave examined 1t somewhat critical,
a"" carefully, and declare cannot find
say ! cannot find that all the abuse ,nor
s ~ 'a1orlously heaped uDon II. con
n.aita,J r. 10 nor believe il is. / on.
pe"e"u 'ne.e ,t Is an honest misapprehension
It is not understood. | fear thee !; 'ii.nN nm,
too much disposition not to know I, in"e
not be so. hey
In the first place, entertain no aouh. :.
was the duty Of Congress 10 pass some !.
more effeclually securing the South's con.
s,itutionai rishts-rghts secured by the con-
s,itulion, which is the law Of the land 4
have no doubt it was the duty of congress IN
egisate upon this subject as the exieencie,
of the time required. The duty was early
recognized in 1898, four years after the adop.
ton of the constitution. A law of Congress
was made, in principle the same as that of
lS50-in detail not rs full. But Inpprehend
on an examination and comparison of The
two laws, it will be foilud that the law
Of '93 is fairly subject 10 more compIaint.
than the law of 1850. believe it TO be SO,
Bul the law Of 93 was in one or two partic-
uars undoubtedly defective, aud hence lie
necessity Of a revision of the law by the con.
gress now in session. The law Of '93 de.
volved upon the State magistrates the Guty
Of its execution-u upon justices Of tile peace.
Experience has shown, To he sure, that our
ancestors were in this respect incorrect. In
lc42 the Supreme Cour Of the u States in
acllng upon "A Question regarding this mat
tar, then before them, did intimate doubt
whether Congress had power 10 devolve this
duty upon State magistrates. do not un-
derstand Il was decided they had NOT the
power, but doubt is expressed, which nude
IL dead letter. Ii had no vitality, as you
VIII see by an examination ol the subject. i;
became necessary TO provide some other ri-
buual; hence by lie act of 1850, power is
given 10 judicial officers provided by Con
gress-mcn Of learning, men OF legal talents,
competent 10 execute the law. In this par
tlculur il is greatly improved. So in anoh-
er respect. by the law OF '93, the indvIdu-
al master, or his agent, (aud this was n re-
cogultlon OF common law 1rInclple,) had
Tl2ht 10 seize his fugitive and return HIM
10 the place fro n whence he came. 1t gave
him no legal aid. lie was obliged TO resort
TO physical force. This oIened the way for
disturbance; il somewhat endangered the
rights OF the free man, aud involved him, az
II might be, and indeed as it sometimes was,
III the same dilemma with the fugitive. The
law OF 1850 has very wisely provided that in
The first instance The claimant may 20 before
the proper magistrate, obtain warrant d.
rected 10 U. 5. Marshal, a higher and inn
porlaht officer, or some other known officer
who is required 10 execute tile precept peace
ably in the execution of his dules rs an Off
Ger. Is not this great improvement
Does il not add greatly TO the safety of the
supposed fugitive? No doubt such is its
character. Eul do not propose to go into
details. have not come here 10 justify the
law in all its details, but cannot justify the
abuse that is heaped upon it. wish every
person who desires Information, would take
The TWO acts and compare them. think |
may say with a lolerabc degree of confidence
YOU will not find the act OF 1850 so objection-
| able as you may have been led to suppose.