Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-09-25
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE meets October Srd
Mr.. Summers Argument.

| speech, we have not published. Though We
| hope all Of our readers will obtain the speech
and peruse Il entire. We alludc to that in re-
gard to the fugitive law. From what we have
published, it will be seen that he in part bases
his argument against the law upon the positive
anti-slavery character of the Constitution. I'm
like some others, however he docs not attempt
to fritter and explain away the plain meaning
of conflicting portions Of tho Constitution, to-
ge,hcr with its whole past history But he
| frankly admits the exceptions, and enquiries
wha; is to be tho course of tho government, in
regard to them, so as to afford protection to
freedom.
In regard 10 the oxtradi,ion clause. he main
tains, that it lcavcssthc question entirely with
the States. That it is simply of the nature ofa
compact. A sort of treaty stipulation between
the states, imposing upon them no obligation to
lcgislatc in regard to it. And that in the ab-
sencc of special legislation, a claim for the de-
livery of the fugitive, is to be brought as a suit
at common law; which so favors liberty, that
the return Of fugitive would be an impossible
ity in a community whose sympathies were for
freedom, as it would submit the question to
trial by jury.
The following is Mr.. Summers conclusion
from his argument.
The conclusion from Itliis examination is
explicit. Clearly aud indisputubly, in Eng
land, the country the common law, u claim
for fugitive slave was n suit at common
law" recognised "among its old aud settled
proceedings" To question this, in the face
of authentic principles aud precedenis, would
be preposterous. AS well might il be ques-
toned, that u writ of replevin for u horse, or
writ of right for land, was ga suit at com
mon law" Ii follows, then, that this techni-
cal term of the constitution, read in the H.
Illumination of the cummon law, naturally
and necessarily embraces proceedings for
the recovery OF fugitive slaves, it any such he
instituted or allowed under the constitution
Aud thus, by the letter of the constitution, in
harmony with the requirements OF the COM
mon law, all such persons, when claimed by
their masters, are entitled to trial by jury.
Mr.. Sumner has very adroitly pointed out
several methods of partial escape, from the con-
slitutional obligations to return fugitives, viz
First from the positive anti-slavery character of
the Constitution. Second, his decided afIirma-
ton Of the Jeffersonian and General Jackson
principle that the constitution is to every pres
ident, congressman and judge, just what he be-
lievcs it to be- and his oath to support it, is an
oath to support what he understands by it,
Thirdly, the strict application of common law
principles, and finally if all these should fail, he
comes in with the higher law of freedom, there
by rendering null and void all legislation for
their return. This latter method will doubtless
prove efficacious, provided no can secure aboli-
tionists for executive officers under the consti-
tuition, especially if they are orthodox on the
Jaeksonian doctrine of the oath. A thing by
the way about as hopeless as any other remedy
for the evil.
With this argument We have no disposition
to pick single flaw. Should we attempt It, it
is not likely we should succeed. Indeed it is
the view we have always taken of the subject.
Whenever We have pronounced the constitution
pro-slavery, it has always been because Of the
exceptions to general principles, which Mr..
Sumner himself here makes. The argument
will be gladly welcomed by those who arc de-
tcrmncd to vote, whose sympathics arc in favor
of freedom and have felt themselves hampcred
by the constitution as it has been interpreted
and administered.
Blu; after all, admitting the argument we arc
not satisfied with the conclusions. 1t does not
reach far enough. We are not pleased with
this indirect way of coming at so positive and
direct an evil We do not like,t assent to
treaty stipulation between the states intending
at the same time by all means to evade the en-
gagement. We cannot for ono moment consent
to put innocent men and women upon trial for
their liberty, even in free State, ard before a
jury of men determined to grant their rights at
all hazards. 1t is an outrageous questioning
of liberty, jeoparding Of inalienable rights,
which no men and no constitution has any Au-
thority to make. 1t is granting to slavery the
issue it demands, viz: that men may be slaves
under some circumstances and conditions, thus
uprooting every principle of freedom. Besides
it leaves us consenting to a partnership with
men and with states whose interests arc oppos-
ed to freedom-who will not only demand that
slaves shall be held in safety at home, but that
those who escape shall be also returned and
who will so return them and hold our consent
that they do it, provided it is done constitutions
ally-by the common law and by the decision
Of jury. On these principles of contestina
with slavery all is in favor of its triumph.
And yet VIC suppose the great mass of anti,
slavery men will be content to come upon Mr.
Summers ground. They prefer catching these
slaveholding sinners "with guile" rather thar
to demand their surrender to the unyieldinl
requisitions of justice. The misfortune of these
tactics is, that "the children of this world arc
wiser in their generation than the children O.
liphtn Henee they have ALWAYS triumphed al