Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-09-18

No person held to service or labor IN
cne State, under the laws thereof escaping
into another, shall, in consequence of any
lnw or regulation therein, he discharged
irum such service or labor, hut shall he de-
hvered up on claim of the party TO whom
such service or labor may be due"
From tic very language employed il is
Obvious that this is merely compact between
ihe States with prohibition on the States,
eoasTing no poicer on The nation. In its nat
rrul signiicaiion it is compact. According
70 the examples of other countries, aud the
principles OF jurisprudence, it is compact.
4 u arrangements for the extradIion of lhgi.
hves have been customarily compacts. EX-
rcpt under the express obligations of treaty,
10 nation is hound to surrender fugilycs.-
Especially has this been the case with lugi-
ives for Freedom. IN medieval Europe
cities refused to recognise this obligation in
fivor of persons even under tho same Ma.
iional Government. In 1881, while the
Netherlands and Spnn were united under
Charles v, the Supreme Council of NJ cllin
Effected an application from Spain for the
Bartender of a fugitive slave. by express
compact alone could this be secured. But
fne provision of the Constitution was bor-
tcrn Territory, which is expressly declared
% be a compact and this Ordinance, final
!, drawn by Nathan Dane, was again bor-
rowcd in its distinctive features from the
.crry institutions of Massachusetts, among
which, ns far back as 1913, was n compact
of like nature with other New England
Siates. Thus this provision is n compact in
fnpungc, in nature, in its whole history (;
as we have already seen it is compact. ac-
cprding TO the intentions of our Fathers and
tic genius of Our institutions.
As n compact its execution depends solely
ppOn the States without any Intervention of
ne Nation. Each State, ia he ercrcise Of is
oien judgement, toiR dicrmine for Itself The
precise eriemi Of he obligations assumed A.
compact in derrogatiOn of Freedom, aud
shunniug ony meaning, not clearly Obvious,
Which takes away important personal rights,
uindtil that tie parties to whom i, Is appl-
q bile Hre regarded MS "persons," of course
, yiih all the rights of "persons" under the
tpnslitution and especially mindful of the
Vigorous maxim of the common law, that
q is cruel aud impious who does not
4 ways favor Freedom. With this key the
ffje interpretation is easy.
Briefly, tie States arc prohibhed from
any law or regulation" by which the ingi-
tive may be discharged, and on the establish
menl of the claim to lis service, ho is to he
up. But the mode by which the
claim is to be tried and determined is not
specified. All this is obviously within the
control ofcach State. 1t may bc done 10y virtue
oileXpress legislation, ,inwhic event amy legis'
lature, Justly careful olpersona liberty, would
the fugitive with every shield of the
law and Constitution. But such legislation
may not be necessary. The Whole proceed
ing, without any express legislation, may be
left to The ancient aud authentic forms of the
common Inv, familiar TO the trainers OF tha
Constitution aud ample for the Occaslon.-
lf the fugitive be seized without ptocess, he
will be entitled AT once TO his writ de HOmlne
RCp'egi0ndO, willie the master, resOring TO
process, may find his remedy in the writ de
.NdiiUo Hdbcndo-each writ requiring Tnlal
by Jury. II from ignorance or lack of cm-
ploy ymcni these processes have slumbcrcd IN
Our coutry, still they belong 10 the great ar
senel of the common law, and continue, like
other ancient writs, tanqudm gtadium an ia
gina, ready To he employed at the first ne
cessiIy. But in dny event aud in either al
tentative the proceedings would he by "suit
nt common law" with Trial by Jury; and 1t
would he the solemn duty OF the court, ae-
cording 10 all the forms and proper delays oi
common law, TO try the case on the evidences;
strictly TO apply all the protecting rules of
evidence, and especially TO require stringent
proof, by competent Witnesses under cross
examination, that tie person claimed was
held to service; that his service was due TO
the claimant; that he had escaped from the
State where such labor was due aud also
proof Of the iaips of the State nnder which he
was held. SiiH FURTHER 10 The Courts of each
State musL belong The determination Of he ques-
lion, 10 iChGt class Of persons according 10 Just
rules of Interpretation, the PhrGse g persons heid
10 service or labor" is strictly applicable.
Such is this much-debaied provision. The
Slave S,ntes,Rt the formation of the Cons'itu-
tiOn,did not propose,as in the cases OF Natural
ization aud Bankruptcy, 10 empower the Ma
iionnl Government 10 establish an uniform
rule for tho rendition of filgitives from labor,
throughout The United States; they did not ask
the National Government 10 charge itself IN
any way with this service they did not ven
tnre TO offend the c0untry,und particularly the
Northern States, by amy such assertion OF
hateful right. They were content under the
sanction of compact, TO leave IL to the pub
lie sentiment OF States. There, Insist It
shall remain.
MIR. President, have occupied much time;
but the great subject still stretches before us.
There is yet one other point which should
not leave untouched, aud which justly be-
longs to the close. The Slave Act violates
the Constitution and shocks the Public Con-
science. With modesiy and yet with firm
ness let me add, sir, il ofiends against the
Divine Law. No such enactment can be
entitled to support. As the throne of God is
above every earthly throne, so are his laws
aud statues above all the laws and statutes of
man. To question these is TO question God
himself But to assume that human laws
are beyond question is to clnim for their lhl-
lible authors nfallibiIity. To assume that
they are always in conformity with those OF
God is presumtuolsly and impiously to exnll
nun to an equality with God. Clearly hui
A. ..