The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-06-24

chance for ustire fsr away from the place Of bis
birth IA al home AZ the time of the formation
of the Constitution, nearly all the States were
slavehodng At that time, therefore, the Geor-
gia ease would have been the general one.
Laws similar TO those of Virginia exist in all the
slaveholding States.
Besides the facilities afforded the negro IN
suits for freedom by our law, the tribunals, IN
administering, have always given the negro the
benefit of all il doubts Our court of appeals, in
at least one case, carried this, in my opinion, to
an unwarrantable extent In that case, where
the indenLical negro was concerned, they de,
cided one way when the controversy was between
claimants of him rs property, and different
way when the suit was one Tor freedom; and
leaning sin favor Of liberty" they allowed pro-
ceedngs to be had which they would have re-
fused in any other case.
! Welt then, might Chief Justice lighman, Of
! Pennsylvania, say; IF he (the fugitve) had
really right to freedom, that right was not i'm.
posed by this proceeding, (the issuing OF the
| warrant for his surrender) lie misplaced just
in the situation in which he stood before he fled,
and might prosecute his right in the State to
which he belonged"
Well, then, might Judge Washington in a
| case which came before him in Phlladelphla, IN
which the fugitive offered TO show that by the
laws of Virginia, from which he admitted he had
fled, he was free, respond al am well acquainted
with the laws Of Virginia, and the character of
| her courts and if the fugitive be really entitled
to freedom, he eau establish il better in Virginia
| than here.
! II there could be any doubt that the question
of freedom or slavery in the case OF fugitlves
from labor, any more than the question of guilt
or innocence in the case Of fugitive from JUS
tce, does not arise on the application for the
surrender of him, it would be removed by the
proceedings of the convention which framed the
Constitution.
On the 10Th of August 1887, the following
proposition was proposed, and unanimously
adopted
II any person bound TO Serrice or labor, in
any of the United States shall escape into
another State he or she shall not be discharged
from such service or labor, in consequence of
any regulation subsstng in the State to which
they escape, but shall be delivered up to the
person Justly claiming their service or labor"
The committee on revision, proposed the
following in lieu of it;
No person legally held to service or labor,
in one State, escaping into another, shall in con-
sequence of regulations subsisting therein, be
discharged from such service or labor, but shall
be delivered up on claim of the party to whom
such service or labor may be due"
The word legally" was stricken out by the
convention and after the word Estate the
words under The laeos thereof" inserted.
Viii it be said, tina! if this be the law, that
freemen at the North might be dragged from
their families and be forced to assert their free
dom before the tribunal of another State, which
would be great hardship? Not greater than
for an innocent man to be dragged from his
family to be tried for crime in another State
nor so great. In the case of the fugitive from
Justice, he would not have the favor shown him,
by the law, which the fugitive from service has
and if he was found to be innocent, he would
have no redress. But if the negro is found to
be freeman, he would have his action against
the person making the seizure. In the case
have already referred to, Chief Justice Parker,
of Massachusetts, said
"But it is objected that person may, in this
summary manner, seize freeman. But this
would be attended with mischievous consequent
ces to the person making the seizure"
Besides the civil action, in case where the
claimant has no pretence of title, he could be
criminally prosecuted.
Sir, the fear that freemen are to be seized un
der the fugitive slave law is imaginary. 1t is
almost impossible that any other than slave
will ever be seized under it, This thing Of cap
turing runaway negroes is not such cheap,
pleasant, and safe thing to life and limb, that
men will freely go into it, The difficulties,
the expense, and the danger of it is such, that
do not believe that one master in thousand
would ever attempt to catch runaway slave,
except for the sake of the example to those at
home. kidnapping free negro would not ac-
complish this. There has never been but one
mistake made in the surrender of an alleged fu-
gitive; and in that case, the moment the negro
was carried to the claimant, he disavowed him.
And it must always be 3d. Every Southern
mans overseers ard neighbours know his negroes,
and if he were to attempt to go TO the North, kid
nap Northern free negro, and keep him upon
his place, he would be lynched first, and sent to
the penitentiary afterwards as would any one
who would attempt to bring to the South, for
traffic, such a negro. There is not planter in
the South who would have a 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 than slaves
will ever be seized under this law, is idle; and
to their surrender we have clear and explicit
constitutional right, and the denial Of which does
not benefit the North, although it Injuries US. On
the contrary, it benefits them as well as u.s.
infer this from the fact that their legislation
shows that they do not regard the negroes as a
desirable population.
But, il has been said upon this floor very fire.
queully, and especially by the gentleman from
New York, Mr.. FLOYD, that this law is odious;
that i.s provisions are stringent that they are
repugnant to Northern feeling, and therefore we
need not expect this law 10 be executed. Well,
sir, if they are stringent, why are they so! Is it
not because the action of the Northern people
and their legislatures have made stringent laws
necessary? And it does not lie in their mouths
TO object to the stringency OF lem.
lie has ingeniously reasoned that the officers
who are authorized to execute these laws are
ire ponsible people. lie contends that the
very fact that a man will undertake to execute
these laws, proves that he is an indifferent char
acter He says the execution of their laws are
left to the sheriffs and constabes who are chosen
for their htness-who have given bonds for the
faithful discharge of their duties. And he init.
mates that the execution of this law ought to be
intrusted to them. He is right. That was the
view taken bv the early lepislators of the conn