The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-06-03

lion and after the word estate, the words sender The
Wlli itbe said that. if this be the law. ireemen at
the North might be dragged from their families, and be
forced To their freedom before the tribunal OF
other State which would be great hardship Not
Than for innocent man TO be dragged from his
family 70 Dc tried for CRIME IN another Staie--nor so
great Ia the OF the fugitive from justice. he would
moi have the favor shown him by the law which the ia.
gtve from service has aud il he was found to be nno
cent. he would have no redress Bui i The negro is
found to be freeman. he would have his action against
the person making the seizure In the case have al
ready referred Chief Justice Parker Of Massachusetts,,
| said
Batit objected that person may, this Summary
manner, seize freeman, But this would be attended
seizure"
Besides the civil action in case where the claimant
has no pretence of title, he could be crminally prose-
| cu,ed.
Sir the fear that feemen are TO be seized under the
lug,tiye-savc law is imaginary II is almost impossible
that any other Than slave will be seized under IT,
This thing OF capturing runaway negroes is not such a
cheap pleasant, and safe thing to life and limb that men
will freely 60 into it, The difficulties, the expense, and
the danger OF il such that do not believe that one
master in thousand would attempt TO catch run
away slave except for the sake Of the example to those
at home, kidnapping free negro would not accomplish
this. There has never been but one mistake made in
the surrender OF an alleged fugitive; and in that case
The moment the negro was carried to the claimant he dis
avowed him. And it must always be Every south
ern mans and neghb0s know his negroes and
ii he were to attempt to 20 10 the North, kidnap norh-
ern Tree negro. and keep him upon his place. he would
be Iynched rs and sent to the penitenlay afterwards
as would any one who would attempt to bring to the
South or traffic, such negro There is not planter
N the South who would have northern free negro on
his plantation for four times his value Our laws under
severe penalties, prohibit their being brought by others
or coming themselves into the southern States
The idea, therefore, that any other the slaves will ever
be seized under this law is idle and 10 their surrender
we have clear and explicit constitutional 1hl, and the
denial OF which does not benefit the North, although it
INJURIES u.s. On the contrary benefits Them as well as
nFor fha thatrl .at,p skn
that they do not regard the negroes as desirable popua
ton.
Bat has been said upon this floor very frequently and
especially blythe gentleman from New York, Mr. FLoYD
that this law ls odOus that its provisions stringent
that they rcpugnant to northern eeng and therefore
we need no, expect this law to be executed Well, sir, if
they are stringent. why are they SO ls It not because
the action OF the northern people and their legislatures
have made stringent laws necessary And does not
lie in their mouths to object to the slringency Of them
He has nyenionsy reasoned that the officers who are
authorized 10 execute these laws irresponsible people
He contends that the very fact that man will undertake
TO execute these laws proves that he is an indifferent
character. He says the execution OF their laws is left
to the shefs and consables who chosen for their
tnesswho have given bonds Tor the faithful discharge
Of their dulles and he nlmates that the execution OF
this law ought 10 be inrusted to them. He is right.
That the view taken by the early legislators OF the
country, who imposed the execution of as many OF the
laws of the United States possible upon the Stale Off
cers with the staiesmanke OF preventing conflict
between Stale and federal officers, and by conseque
between he States and the general government The
that view But did not the legislature of the genemans
own State pass and have the legislatures OF most of
the northern States passed, laws prohibiting the officers OF
make max the enforcement ss Of he law Of i9oa absoaty i'm
possible Did they not by legislation nullify that lawl
II, them semplasns are made that the execution OF these
laws 10 not ntrused TO the State officers say II has be-
come matter OF necessity that their execution should
be in,rus,ed to Others and that necessity is not the
suit OF the action OF the South; aud does not lie in the
mouths OF notthers to condemn what their conduct
has made indispensable.
But, TO the severity OF these provisions and as 10
their summary character they are not more severe or
summary than those Tor the delivery OF fugves
from justice. There two classes OF ugitves from
justice Tor the surrender OF whom our laws provide
Under the treaty OF Washington, IT is provided that ce
tain fugves IRON Great Britain and her dominions 10
this country shall be delivered up and they surren-
dered under similar rules and regulations 10 those prov
ded for in the delivery of fugitive slaves and the laws
are executed by precisely the persons. Yet why
are there no complaints that white men are thus sum.
marly delivered up when they have fled from land OF
oppression TO one OF befiyl Why are the complaints
made oil the character OF those proceedings confined TO
the delivery OF fugitive slaves alone Is IL because, in
the OF the fugitive slave IL is impossible, as have
shown that there can be oppression He has better OPP
ponnites ten times over, OF ascertaining his right TO
freedom in any of the southern States than the fugitive
from justice has in establishing his innocence either in
England or the northern States.
Now, sir do not mean TO come here TO say that the
repeal oil the fugve-slave law, without the subatu-
ton OF another equally affective, will lead 10 the dsso
luton OF this Union. do not say that, because
know that there is amongst great many persons dis
position 10 laugh at the idea that there is any danger OF
that result but do come here to prove 10 such
are rational upon that point.
In tho language OF the Supreme Court OF the United
States
" Historically Il is well known that the object OF This
clause TO secure 10 the citizens OF the slavehodng
the complete right and title OF ownership their
slaves as property in every State Of the Union into which
they might from the State where they held in
servude. The full recognition OF this right and title
Indispensable 10 the security OF this species OF properly In
all slavchodiog States and indeed, vital the
mn res
cannot be dobfsi that cOpsfif afed fundaeniaf
article nio ,ohc The Uaion could not hare been formed
Its design TO guard against the doctrines and prn
cple prevalent In the vehoding Sste by prevent
ing them from inermeddng with, or obsrucng abOl-
ishing the rights Of owners OF slaves"
And, in the language OF Chief Justice Tlghman, al
ready quoted
" Whatever may be private opinions the sui ct
Of slavery IL 10 nell kn0cH that southern brethren would
have consented TO become parties constitution
der which the United States has enjoyed much prosperi
~, unless their property In slaves had been secured"
When the constitution Of the United States formed
there was not the necessity for provision TO
guaranty the surrender OF fugitive slave. as there
now At that Time all the States OF the Union, with the
single exception OF Massachusetts, were savehoding
Between the savehoding States there has been
any great necessity for this provision. The provision
grew out OF the forecast OF fathers, who that
the northern States would gradually become on-save
holding States III all TO have remained slave
holding States there never would have been any necess
ty for any such law. The necessity prospect however
that time so obvious that il was insisted upon as
sine qua non and the constitution would not have been
formed bat Tor It, DO gentlemen suppose that when the
necessity Tor IT has greatly augmented, the South s
insensble 10 its rights that they will agree to give
up the provision which they insisted upon qua