The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-03-25

fal. 1t is perfectly preposterous to talk of his
personal popularity. He has none, besides
what he gets from the policy Of the priesthood,
and the means Of influence deposited in the
public chest q.
From the San Francisco Herald, Feb H. 1852,
EUcEyyyE SLAVE Law DEBATE -.
ASSEMBLY
SACRAMENTO, February 5, 1852.
After my despatch closed yesterday, Il very
exciting and important debate sprung up the
House being in Committee of the Whole, upon
the bill introduced by Mr. Crabb, respecting
fugtives from labor, and slaves brought to this
State prior to the adoption of the Constitution y
Sec 1. Empowers the owner of slave, his
agent or attorney, to seize the fugitive, or OBJ
tain warrant from any judge or magistrate
directed to any police officer to perform the ar
rest; and upon sufficient proof of the validity
of the claim to such slave, any judge or magis-
trate is directed to issue warrant for the re-
moval of such slave to the State from whence he
fled. The testimony of the fugitive is not to be
taken in evidence, and the writ of removal is to
be guaranty for any process or molestation
whatsoever.
Sec. ?. Prescribes the penalty for rendering
assistance to the fugitives in escaping which
shall be not less than $500 fine and two months
imprisonment, and forfeit the sum of 81 900
civil damages to the claimant of the fugitive
Sec. 3 Prescribes the duties of police officers,
and the penalties ior noncompliance, which
| are a fine of not less than $500 or more than
| 81 600 and removal from Office and if the
fugitive should escape by the assent or conn-
vance of the officers then the latter are liable
for civil damages to the full amount of the val
ue of the slave.
Sec. 4. Any person or persons held to labor
or service in any State or Territory of the Uni
ted States by the laws of such State or Terri
tory, and who were brought or introduced with
in the limits of this State, previous to the ad-
mission of this State one of the United States
of America and who shall refuse to return to
the State or Territory where she or they owed
such labor or service, upon the demand of the
person or persons his or their agent or attor.
ney to whom such service or labor was due
such person or persons, refusing TO return
shall be held and deemed iugitves from labor
within the meaning of this act and all tn,
remedies, rights and provisions, herein given t,
claimants Of fugtivcs who may escape from any
other State into this State, are hereby giver
and conferred upon claimants Of tugitiyes from
labor within the meaning of this section.
| Mr.. McConaha moved to strike out the 4tll
section He doubted the constitutionality OF
the entire bill, and proceeded to read extracts
from the Constitution to prove his position.
MIR. Lyon contended that, before the State or.
ganizaton, we were under Mexican law, which
did not recognise slavery, and therefore bring
ing slaves into the Territory virtually made
them free.
Mr Md tLn -
length in favor Of the bill. His remarks were
argumentative and excelently well received
After several amendments had been proposed
and discussed, Mr. Ellis moved an amendment
to the 4th section, and sustained his motion in
a speech of some length.
Mr. Peachy said that the 4th section of the
bill involved very grave consideration He
held that when the United States acquired ter
ritory it belonged alike to the citizens of all
the States, and that each citizen of every State
had right to take his property to that Terri
tory, and enjoy its full use, service, and value
He knew that able men had taken other posi-
tons, but he did not think they could be main
tanned 1t appeared that to the Territory of
California slaves were brought by emigrants
and had remained there after the adoption Of
the Constitution An argument had been urg.
ed that the Spanish laws in force here before
the Constitution did not allow the existence of
slavery. Mr.. p said this proposition made the
law OF conquered people superior to those of
the cOnquerors, which he considered absurd
He said 1t was true the law of nations recog-
Missed the laws Of conquered nations until those
OF the conquerors were specifically extended
over them which was "A Just and equitable pro-
vision, made to prevent anarchy and confusion ;
but he denied that all the Spanish laws in Cal
| iiornia had prevailed up to the time of the ex-
tension of positive enactments by the United
| States over the country. He maintained that
such IA were not in actual enforcement in the
| country prior to our occupation, were not to be
recognised, and that no political sanction could
| he gwen them, except TO the extent in which
| they were found in real de Jaeio operation, and
deriving their force from the absolute requis-
ton of the society in which they were obtained
The point was, whether the Constitution
| Of the State deprived a citizen of any right
which he had before its adoption. In the alb
sence Of any express declaration otherwise he
held that the operation Of the Constitution was
prospective only IL declared that in the fu.
| ture there should be no such class of persons
as slaves in the State lie sdw no reason for
Interpreting Mis prOUision as declaring the siaUes
~ The STATE free HIS ground iras, that The peo-
pie IN the State could hold no pouer 10 deprire
any person Of rights whieh he had 10 any prop.
eyty at The time Of The adoption Of The Constitu-
| ton.
Mr. Peachy said the whole argument Of Mr.
| Ellis, of Nevada, was founded upon the sup
position that freedom is denied to the persons
| in question by the Constitution Of this State,
and that the clause in the Federal Constitution
in regard to fugitive slaves does not conflict
with and override that provision Of our Consti-
tuition Mr. Peachy does not consider the
question whether the slave be fugitive or not,
TO enter into the discussion Of the ith section
of this bill
That section is intended to provide for the
case of slaves brought to California before her
admission into the Uuion. 1t does not limit
its measure OF justice 10 the iulhlment OF the
obligations imposed upon this State by the
Federal Constitution. Ii goes farther, much
farther. The true question Is, did the Constitu-
ton Of this State invest with freedom such
persons a. existed in this country in the con
ditiOn of slaves, prior TO its adoption Mr..
Ellis, Of Nevada, seems to take it for granted
that such is the operation Of the Constitution
because he is of opinion that only fugitiyes
from labor can DO surrendered. MIR. Peachy,
for the reasons above stated by him. differed
from Mr.. Ellis Mr. Peachy thought that
ILL