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

|
tenure Of power becomes each day more doubt
ful. 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. G.
From the San Francisco Herald, Feb ~, 1852
co. js55iSE SLAVE LAW nsYsT ens.
ASSEMBLY.
SACRAMENTO, February 5, 1852.
After my despatch closed yesterday, very
exciting and important debate sprung up, the
House being in Committee of the Whole upon
the bill introduced by Mr. Crabb, respecting
fugitives from labor, and slaves brought to this
State prior to the adoption of the Constitution"
Sec. /. Empowers the owner of slave his
agent or attorney, to seize the fugitive, or Oh
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-
moyal 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 a guaranty for any process or molestation
whatsoever.
Sec 2 Prescribes the penalty for rendering
assistance to the fugtives in escaping which
shall be not less than $500 fine and two months
imprisonment and forfeit the sum of $1,000
civil damages to the claimant of the fugitive.
Sec. 3. Prescribes the duties of police officers
and the penalties for noncompliance, which
| are a fine OF not less than $500 or more than
| 81 200 and removal from Office; and if the
fugitive should escape by the assent or conni-
vance of the officers, then the latter are liable
for civil damages to the full amount of the val
ne of the slave.
Sec. L. 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 as 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 service, upon the demand Of the
person or persons, his or their agent or attor
ney to whom sush service or labor was due
such person or persons, so refusing to return
shall be held and deemed fugtives from labor
within the meaning of this act and all the
remedies rights, and provisions, herein given to
claimants Of fugltives who may escape from any
other State into this State, are hereby given
and conferred upon claimants of fugtives from
labor within the meaning of this section.
Mr. McConaha moved to strike out the 4th
section He doubted the constitutionality of
the entire bill, and proceeded to read extracts
from the Constitution to prove his position.
Mr. Lyon contended that, before the State or
ganzatiOn, we were under Mexican law, which
did not recognise slavery, and therefore bring
ing slaves into the Territory virtually made
them free.
Mr. Wood addressed the Committee at
length, in favor of the bill His remarks were
argumentatiye and excellently 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 just and equitable pro-
vision, made to prevent anarchy and confusion
but he denied that all the Spanish laws in Cal
fornia had prevailed up to the time of the ex-
tension Of positive enactments by the United
States over the country He maintained that
such as 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 Jdeto operation and
deriving their force from the absolute requisi-
ton of the society in which they were obtained.
The point was, whether the Constitution
Of the State deprived 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 II declared that in the iu-
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
m Tie State free. HIS ground lrds, that The peo-
pie IN the State could hold no pouer 10 deprive
any person Of rights whieh he had 10 amy prop.
erty at The time Of he 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 Constr
tuition Mr. Pcachy does not consider the
question whether the slave be fugitive or not,
TO enter into the discussion Of the 4th 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 to tho fulfilment OF the
obligations imposed upon this State by the
Federal Constitution. IL goes farther, much
farther The true question Is, did the Constltu-
ton of this State invest with freedom such
persons as existed in this country in the con-
dition Of slaves, prior to its adoption! Mr.,
| Ellis, of Nevada, seems to take It Tor granted
that such is the operation Of the Constitution
4