Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1852-03-25
The First Blow Struck in Cal
ifornia.

L
people of the Free States to the danger of los
ing, by the insduous introduction of slavery into
California, all that they ever gained by the Com
promise; but the press has generally been mat
tentve and indifferent. At last, the first sue.
cessfu blow for slavery has been struck in Cal
fornia. A brl has passed the Legislature, in
fragrant violation Of the Constitution, to reduce
to slavery persons who were carried 10 the the
Territory as slaves, before its organization, ard
ncipated by IFS State Constitution. The
passage of this bill shows that the legislative
power Of the State is in the hands OF the slavery
party. Possibly the good people of the Free
States may nov think it worth while to talk less
of the cheating Compromise, and do more to rid
themselves of the old party hacks, who are la.
boring to nurcotize them on the subject Of slave.
ry.-.Ndt Era.
From the Alta California, Feb. l6.
FUGITIVE. SLAVE LAWS IN CALIFORNIA.
The Hon. Fl. A, Crabb, member of the AS.
semby from the county of San Joaquin, intro
duced into that branch of the Legislature o.
which he is o member, bill respecting fu
gitives from labor and slaves brought into this
State prior to ker admission into the Union :
which, after debate and amendment, has finally
passed that body.
We have nck received copy of the bill as i
finally passed Ne assembly, but there is nov
before us MI Crabbs bill as originally intro
loAsl .ha 6,tY - nprtions AZ sv3aish, - rs
tantlalIy as they we're brough
foffIs sn!lenan from e7- Sen I Il Sliyl
the rugTdVe q ge law Of the last Congress, t
the officers O ur State Government and a
they are neltta so perspcuous nor effective a
the provlsons pit that statute, they are Of n
moment whata er They will not affect o
change the laV of the land in any particular
and will remain but dead letter whilst the en-
actment OF Congress is in existence. 1t may b.
well enough, however, to have them upon thu
statute-book; al least there is no serious obiec
ton to them
The third section was mainly to the same eff
feet as the two first; but its last clause, whlcI
was somewhat extraordinary in character, wa
so amended in its passage through the commit
tee as to make It correspond generally with tn,
two preceding ones, and in that shape it wa
adopted
The whole bill, to our thinking, is useles
encumbrance upon the statute.bo book, and sucl
appears to have been the opinion of the Assem-
bly,; for they adopted an amendment limiting
VIZ NAiSIShNO vi lliO law W LhCN6 uUuLLS Du
the really Objectionable feature of the act is tn,
fourth section. AS we have before remarked
we do not know positively the shape in which
the section was adopted but it is probably suf
tlclent for our purpose to show the section as
was introduced by the Hon. Mr.. Crabb.
Here it is:
~ 4. ANY person or persons held to labor o
service in any State or Territory of the UNITED
States, by the laws of such State or Territory
and who were brought or introduced within thu
limits of this State previous to the admission o
this State as one of the United States of Amer
lea, and who shall refuse to return to the Stat
or Territory where she or they owed such labo
or service, upon the demand Of the person o
persons, his or their agent or attorney, to WHOM
such service or labor was due, such person O
persons so refusing TO return shall be held an
deemed fugitiVes from labor within the meaning
:, of this act; and all the remedies, rights an
provisions, hereio given to claimants of fug
tlVes who escape from any other State into thi
State, are hereby given and conferred upo
claimants of fugitlves from labor within tn
meaning of this section"
This section is undoubtedly in direct oppos
ton to the clause in the Constitution respectin
slavery. That (1stsduient says, in very explic
and unmIstakal|s language, that
"Nelther slavery nor involuntary servitudt
unless tor the punishment of crimes, shall eve
De tolerated in this State"
Is there not between this provision of tn
; Constitution and the section quoted above a
rect conflict? D es not the Constitution ga
That slavery shall not be tolerated, and does nc
the section of Mr. C.'s bill actually and Direct
tolerate the institution !? Nothing, it appears t
u.s. can be plaiuer.
We know it will be urged that slaves wer
brought into thaS country before the adoption
the constitution, and that the owners ought
have been permitted time TO remove them. Thu
may be all true; and yet no law of this kind ca
Affect the matter The Constitution NAV hav
been unjust in its summary manner Of dlsposin
oil the question of slavery; but, il it were, n
: Feeble enactmen.s of a Legislature which wa
created by it have sufficient potency to nullif
Its plain provisions.
MEDDLTNG WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
g A bill has been introduced into the Legisla
ture of California, providing for the calling OF
; Convention to revise the Constitution. The AL
} CatyOrniG mentions the two lurking motives ic
TINS proposal The first is, to procure the divis
ION OF the State and the second is, SO to cor
trol the course of events that one or both tn
States, formed after the division, shall becom
slaveholding States. That there may be an ir
tentlon to promote Constitution convention i
order to produce division Of the State, there
little doubt but that there can be the aIghtes
intention to introduce the slavery question int
tge issue, weave quite unwilling TO believe
' But, be that as It may, we are willing to fgh