The Empire County argus., 1854-04-01
LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS.
AssEMBLY--March 18th, 1854.

AssEMBLY-March 18th, 1854.
FUGITIVE SLAVES.
Mr.. Herbert moved to take from the table the bill
extending the time for the removal OF slaves from
this State. Carried. And after discussion as to
points of ORDER the bill, and substitute reported by
u majority OF the committee, were read
MIR. Myers moved the adoption OF the original bill.
MIR. Gordon moved to amend to adopt the
substitute.
MIR. Gordon said he was in favor of the adoption
of the substitute. The time for the removal OF slaves
was extended for year, by the past Legislature,
and it was now proper that the claimant should be
required to prove that he mad exercised due dill
gence to recover his slave before taking him away.
He said he came from slave state and was desi-
rous that every protection should be extended to
the owners of this species of property The original
bill provided that if cargo OF slaves were landed on
this coast, from any place, even rom Africa the
owner upon his simple affidavit, could remove them
pass a law making it applicable to slaves brought
from slave states before the admission OF California
into the Union And he was willing to extend the
time for such removal but as time had already been
granted, he said it was but just that the claimant
should prove that he had exercised due diligence !;
he had therefore supported the substitute III COM
mittee, and was in favor Of it now.
MIR Herbert said that there the most urgent
reasons why the original bill should pass and not
the substitute. Persons who had brought slaves
here prior to the admission Of California, had lost
them, they escaped into the mincs OF fled to other
parts of the state. The owner might have made
diligent search and perhaps at last found his slave
and bringing him to this city. Stockton. or San
Francisco, on his way in removing from the state
he could be stopped, under the provisions OF the
substitute, if it became law and be compelled to
show that he had before that time exercised due
diligence and while he had to so back to the mines
to search for the witnesses to prove that he had used
Al. i 81 L,',p hD
off to Klamath Oregon, Washington Territory, or
the Sandwich Islands. The original bill but ex-
tended the time which would shortly expire by linn
itation, under the law ON the statutes. 1t was
but an act Of Justice to the of this species Of
property that they should have further time, and he
hoped to see the original pass.
Mr. Warmcastle said he had no objections to al
low persons to remove their slaves from the state ;
the time had been extended to them to do so but
he wanted it to stop somewhere he did not so much
object to the extension of the time for another year.
but he thought it right that the complainant should
be required to make affidavit that he had heretofore
used due diligence to secure and remove his prop
erty, and it was in this feature that the substitute
differed from the original bill he had advocated the
adoption of the substitute in committee for these
considerations and he desired to see it adopted by
the House
Mr.. Myers moved to amend the original bill so as
to include slaves coming from Territories of the U
of order; after they had been settled, the amend
ment adopted.
Mr. James was opposed to the adoption Of the
substitute, unless the showing of due diligence Tor
the recovery of the slave should consist only Of the
claimants affidavit to that effect.
MIR. AIcBrayer said he could not sustain the sub
stitute unless amended that the affidavit Of the
claimant should be taken as prima faoio evidence
of the diligence
Mr. Ashley would never object to giving rea-
sonable time for the removal Of slaves; a law Tor
this purpose was passed in 1850 and by extending
the time, this law had been in operation two years,
if this was not time enough he was willing to extend
it for another year, but with the gentleman rom
Contra Costa, Mr.. Warmcastlc) he wanted it to
sop somewhere The substitute provided that the
claimant Of a slave should prove that since the ad-
mission of California into the Union, he had used
due diligence for the recovery of his property, he
thought this provision wise one without it, the
Legislature would be called upon year after year to
extend the time while the owners not being required
to any exerons to remove their property. would
allow their slaves to remain here until It suited their
convenience to have them removed.
MIR. Gordon one Of TIL Judiciary committee,
had signed the majority report recommending the
adoption of the substitute, while entertaining some
of the views as expressed by the gentleman who
preceded him, he could not but admit the full force
of the reasons as urged by the gentleman from
Mariposa, MIR. Herbert.)
Mr.. Warmcastle desired the adoption of the sub
stute; he willing that those persons who bro't
slaves into this country before the adoption of the
constitution, should have reasonable time to re-
move them, but as time had been granted them, end
that time had been extended, he, while willing again
to extend it, thought it but reasonable that the
the claimants should be required to show that they
had heretofore used reasonable and proper dill
gence for the recovery of their slaves
Mr.. Myers said that the original bill was an al
most exact copy of the law of Congress on this sub
ject. Congress did not require the showing of due
diligence it was supposed that every person owning
slaves who had escaped, would exercise dul diligence
in their recovery; under the law of Congress oral
testimony was all that was required; he could see
no reason why this state should require more
Mr. McKenney thought there should be some lin
itation as to time, but that time had not come as
yet. He was opposed to the substitute because it
required proof Of due diligence. In many cases
this would be very difficult, there were many alb
olitionists and freesoers in this state who OPP
posed to the owners Of slaves recovering them that
person in search of his slave had to do it secretly