Washington sentinel., 1854-05-10
MIR. BENTON AND FUGITIVE SLAVES.

MIR. BENTON AND FUGITIVE SLAVES.
The representative of the Saint Louis district,
in his recent speech against the Nebraska bill,
lays much stress on the fact that the Missouri
act of 1920 contains clause relating to the de-
livery Of fugitive slaves who might escape into
the territory north Of SO 30>. Mr.. Benton
seems to attach much Importance to this clause
Indeed he makes it an essential element of the
act of 1920, and represents it as the concession
to the south which made the passage of that
act possible.
1t requires no very great degree of sagacity
to enable any one to perceive the motive which
induced Mr.. Benton to press this view Of the
case with so much emphasis. Not satisfied
with his attempt to create the opinion that the
south forced the Missouri restriction on the
north, he found it necessary to claim for the
restrictive clause something more of sanctity
than belongs to ordinary legislation. In order
to do that, twas necessary to give to it features
similar to those of a bargain or of compro-
mise, founded on the mutual concessions Of OPP
posing interests, for the sake Of peace and har-
mony.
He could find that the north realized an i'm
mense gain by the prohibition Of slavery north
of go 3O,> line which according to the
second chapter of his book "gare about all to
The north" But then it was necessary to find
clause BY which the north gave something
to the south in compensation for about all of
the territoy west of the Mississippi, in order to
raise the act Of 1920 above an ordinary act of
legislation. He could not find in the admis.
sion of Missouri anything to suit his purpose.
lie could not torture that into concession by
the north of any of its just rights; and nothing
was left him but the proviso with reference to fu-
gitive slaves. Having nothing else to go upon,
Mr.. Benton undertook to puff up, enlarge, and
magnify the fugitive-slave proviso. To read
his speech, one would think that the south ac-
quired some great practical good by that pro.
yiso as compensation for the surrender of
about all of the territory west of the Missis.
sippi. But, when the matter is examined care
fully, the mountain dwindles to mole.hill of
the most contemplate dimensions---yea, it even
disappears entirely. The proviso in the Mis-
souri, act, relative to the surrender of fugitive
slaves, did not provide the ,cays and means Of
recovering such fugitives. Like the Consttu-
ton, it required that they be delcere1 up, but no
lawwas enacted in obedience to that requirement.
Mr.. Benton remarks, in another portion Of
his speech, that "the Constitution is an or
ganic, not an administrative act. It is code |
of principles, not Of laws. Not clause in it |
can be executed encept by rirtue Of a la,o made
under it-n0t eren tie clause for recovering
fagtice sldres.n If the constitutional prov- |
sion with regard to fugitives was worthless or
imperative until suitable legislation gave it |
life and vigor, no benefit could be derived from
the proviso to the eighth section of the Mis-
souri, act; for there was no additional and sup
Elementary legislation to carry it into effect
and give it practical value. Like the Consti
tuition, it simply declared that fugitives should
be given up, acithout preceding the means for
making reclamations.
Mr.. Benton, after having magnifed the pro-
viso above mentioned until its proportions were
large enough to satisfy him, if no one else,
announces the strange and incomprehensible
conclusion that, by the repeal of the eighth
section of the Missouri act. the whole Of Ne.
b aska and Kansas will be made an asylum
for fugitive slaves. He says:
There will be no law to recover a slave
from all that vast region. The constitutional
provision is limited to States: the provision in
the act of 1857 is limited to the Northwest Ter.
ritory the second part of the Missouri com.
promise extended this right to all the territory
north and west of Missouri; and, that being re.
pealed, that right of recovery is lost"
This conclusion, as far as it relates to the
Nebraska bill, has nothing whatever to rest
upon, as Mr.. Benton must know very well,
if he knows tithe of what he pretends to
know, unless he is laboring under some malign
influence which distorts his perceptions and
obscures his Judgment As we have already
said, the Missouri act declares that fugitive
slaves shall be given up in Nebraska; but it
does not make any provision for their recovery,
as Mr.. Benton asserts it does. There is no
law to make the declaration good, and no
courts, no judges, marshals, or other officers to
carry out the law, if one existed.
But if the case was different if the act Of
1870 had made adequate and suitable provision
Tor the recovery Of fugitive slaves, and had ap-
pointed officers to execute it, the passage of
the Nebraska bill would not make the territory
north of 360 3O> an asylum for fugitive slaves
the right Of recovery would not be lost. Mr.
Benton, to the contrary notwithstanding. The
Nebraska bill, whilst it repeals, if it becomes a
law, the 9Th section of the act of 1920, extends
the provisions of the fugitive slave law of 1850
over Kansas and Nebraska, and erects terrific.
rial governments, with tribunals and officers,
TO give it active and efficient vitality. An
inert and torpid declaration would give place
to practicable and useful measure, with
all the machinery Of government necessary
to carry it into effective operation. 1t is, in.