Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-07-08

North. lie entirely agreed with his colleague as q
20 the character Of the memorialists. Among them !
were those who had acquiesced in the compromise
measures of 1850. There were there also those
engaged in the great mercantile interest. II was
that great interest which, in the history Of England,
twice arrested measures for the prevention of
Algerine slavery. Twice had II checked the hui
Iuano efforts of Wilberforcc to break up the Atri-
elm slave trade. 1t was the same great interest
which, from sordid motives. had in the constitution
of the United States kent for 20 years the same
heaven offending traffic from the judgement Of the
people. lie had spoken against the
aug,tivc slave law here and Elsewhere lie was
free to avow 1T. For so doing, he would not throw
itimself upon the Judgement Of q Senate fresh
from the passage of the Nebraska act, bu. would
throw himself upon the judgment of his country
rrl his God, lie then read numerous extracts
from his former speeches on this law, and avowed
again the sentiment therein expressed. lie refer
red to the sentiments expressed in Faneuil Ullby
ods, Adams, and others, preceding the revolution,
in which they held that resistance to slavery was
the law of God. A short distance fr0mthat sacred
cdif ,e, said he, and between it and the court house
where the disgusting rites of sacrificing a human
being to slavery wero lately rcrinuned-ncar the
spot which was first moistcned Ivy the American
blood in resisting slavery, and among the first
victims was n colored persCn-near Boston are
Concord and Lexington, vherethat resistance com
Ynaacel Grccciyed It's browning glory III BunkerlIill.
lie then ran Il plrellei between the resistance to the
Stamp Ac; of l7G5 and the Fugitive Slave Act Of
1850. lie further contcnded that the former was a
harmless measure when c0atrastcd with the lat
ter.
Mr.. Butler said that his idea on this question
was, there ought not to be any necessity for q fugi-
tive slave law. Under the Constitution, each State,
of itself, ought to provide for the rendition of all
f~ugitivcs from lsbor to their masters. He had
listened to the Senator who presented the memOri-
nj, and was pleased with his manner. There was
n nDlupnNEg anal SiOapritv ahptt he pnp,n pIS ,vhiph
required for them the highest respect. He regret
ted 10 hear him say that there was intense feeling
at the North on this subject. While he had no oljec-
tien to a reference of the memorial, he in all frank
mess desired to ask the Senator if the fires which
he says are burning at the North, are not to be
extinguished, what good is to be accomplished by
a report of a committee? If they report that the
law ought not to be repealed, that will not satisfy
any person who demands itsr epeal.
lie was surprised to hear the other Senator (Mr.
Sumner) indulge in such rhetorical displays and
had taste, doing no credit to his own taste or to the
Senate. His speech was unworthy of the Senate
and ofa scholar. If he had kept it u while longer,
and dressed it upa little it might have answered for a
fourth Of July Grafton i'll some localities. He would
remind the Senator that when Otis spoke in Fan
euil Hall, when Hancock acted, and when Adams
wrote, they did so as the representatives of q slave
holding State. The appeals of Boston and Massa-
chusetts made in those days were addressed to slave
holding States. The men OF Massachusetts, of
that day were Shareholders. and gentlemen. He
regretted much the character of the Senator'S
speech. There was a great difference between it
md that of his colleague. One was a calm honest,
and sincere expressions of belief and opinion the
other was false, rhetorical, d~eclamative, and incen-
tive TO arouse the worst passions of the infatuated
neople of certain localities. If the issue was to be
indicated, and the contest was to be between the
North and the South, let it come and be decided at
once. Let it be considered, argued, and disposed
of calmly, and without exciting appeals dressed
up in the rhetorical display, such as was made by
the Senator to day. lie wouldlike to ask the Senator
if Congress repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, would
Massachusetts, execute the constitutional require
ments, and send back to the South the descending
slave?
Mr.. Sumner-do You ask nc if l would send
back 4 slave?
Mr.. Butlcr-Why, yes!
Mr.. Sumncr-"Is thy servant a dog, that he
should do this thing?"
Mr.. Butler-Thcre he is again with n quotation
all ready prepared. lie gets up here and spouts i
out, with, as he doubtless supposes, more thai
Demosthcuian eloquence and beauty. But he i
mistaken. What have dogs got to do with tn
Constitution? QLaughter.) The Senator declare
that he would not execute the Constitution which
he has sworn to support. The Senator openl,
declares that it is a dogs duty to obey and execute
the Constitution. The Senator has sworn to sup
port it, and declares to do SO is a dogs duty.
Mr.. Sumner-l recognise no such obligation
upon me.
Mr.. But,er-Well 1 suppose it makes but lit
tie difference what you consider obligatory upoi
you.
Mr.. Mason followed, defending the Fugitive
Slave Law. lie denied that it suspended the ha
beas corpus act, as asserted, either ignorantly o.
corruptly, by the Senator from Massachusetts
lie said that it was Massachusetts, and the othel
New England States which had forced into thu
Constitution the prohibition upon Congress, repeal
ing the slave trade for twenty years. This wa
done that in that time these States might do thu
carrying trade in that traffic.
Mr.. Petit said that he had lived to hear upol
the door Of the Serate an avowal which he neve
expected to have heard anywhere, that q Senator
sworn 10 support the Constitution recognizes n
such obligation to that instrument.
lie Believed in the right of petition. lie woult
vote to receive any that was respectful in its char
ncter, and to refer it. Should O petition come her
from Massachusetts, or elsewhere, asking the Sen
ate u expel any senator who should disavow an
Obligation to the Constitution, he would vote to rC
ceive and to refer it, though he would not at pre-;
eAt say how he would vote upon it finally. Th
Senator had sworn openly to support the Constitl
tion in all its parts. He made no reservation. II
could not take his seat if he had, and he ought nj
to hold his seat after making it.
lie again referred to that part of the Declaratio
Of independence which says, all men are create
equal, and held, that if those words were used
the sense placed upon them by the abolitionist
they were a selfevident lie. lie discussed til
matter for half an hour. lie denied that men we
created equal, either physically, morally, politics
ly or mentally. lie denied that the Senator w
had sworn to support the Constitution, and who
day spit upon that oath, was equal to his revol
tionary ancestors.
Mr.. Su1aner-Never, sir, never.
Mr.. Pettit-You denied that the CONSTITUTE
had placed any obligation upon you which y
were bound by. Was such a Senator equal
Webster? The one had earned the title Of the e
FOUNDER of the Constitution, the other deserve
that Of the contemner and despiser of that instr
ment. If the Almighty intended to have Great
the Senator equal to Webster, then that great pc
er had committed a great blunder and failure. /
did not think the searcher after an equality
morals could find any one more degraded than t
Senator, who, after having called God to.witne
his declaration to support the Constitution, ha
with that fact fresh in the minds of his fellow Sc