Washington sentinel., 1854-07-11

resolution was agreed to, providing that the
daily hour of meeting shall be eleven instead
of twelve o'clock, M, as heretofore.
NULLIFICATIQN NORTH AND SOUTH
CONNECTICUT AND SOUTH CARO-
LIMA.
The Providence Journal, published at Provi.
dence, Rhode Island, says, in its issue of the
seventh of this month:
"The Washington Sentinel and other south
ern papers complain of the notification of the
Connecticut legislature in the law enacted to-
impede the execution Of the fugitive slave law.
The Sentinel. with little stretch of language,
calls this notification, and certainly it does not
lack much of it. Now, we do not approve of
this legislation; but we disapprove of it equally,
whether it is practiced in the north or in the
south. Louisiana and South Carolina have
long nullifed the laws of the United States, and
utterly disregarded the Constitution, in their
laws against free negroes from other States"
The Providence Journal continues by saying
that it does not approve the laws of South
Carolina and Louisiana nor that of Connect
cut. We fear, however, that the quotation we
have made from that paper shows that its SYM
pathies lay in the wrong direction but we will
give it the full benefit of its disclaimer, and at
tempt to correct the wrong prejudices under
which it labors.
In the first place. we affirm that we have
been guilty Of none-not even of "a little
stretch" of language-in denouncing the Con.
necticut act as open. plain, and patent nullif-
cation. The Providence Journal admits that
"it does not lack much of it." We say that
it lacks nothing-no'hing whatever, but the at.
tempt to carry the act into practical operation.
1t is freely admitted that the intention of the
committee which reported the bill was to pre-.
vent the execution of the fugitive slave law,
and that the bin was carefully framed to evade
the provisions of that law. Now, if we know
anything of legal principles. the intent to evade
the provisions Of any law, when that intent can
be shown, must be held unsuccessful, and sub
ject the offender TO all the pains and penalties
of the law, whose provisions he sought to
avoid. In the present instance, that attempt,
by parity Of reasoning, must be held to be an
open attempt at notification, and nothing less.
But this is not all. The fugitive slave law
prescribes the manner in which fugitive slaves
may be reclaimed, and it legalizes all reclama-
tious made in obedience to it. But the Con.
necticut act does not respect the act of Con-
gress. for it declares that one, proceeding ac-
cording to that law, is guilty of an attempt to
kidnsp, unless he can bring two witnesses in a
State court who can substantiate his claim.
Nor is this all. The witnesses themselves are
declared to be guilty of perjury unless they
can bring two witnesses to corroborate the truth
of their testimony This is not only clear null
lfcation, but direct and deliberate violation
Of all the rules Of evidence, in order to accom-
plish notification.
For instance, man is held guilty of a
high crime for pursuing his property in strict
accordance with the act of Congress. BE
is thus held, not on proof Of criminal in
tent, but without any proof whatever. Then
when he calls a witness to sustain him. that
witness is held to be guilty Of perjury, not
because he has given false testimony, but be-
cause he has testified in favor Of the claim
ant, and he can only avoid the degrading SEN
tence by finding two witnesses who are cogni-
zant Of the same facts which he was cognizant
or Heretofore guilt had to be proved, but the
Connecticut law presumcs guilt from the be-
ginning, in open violation Of law, and requires
corrobratng evidence to prove innocence.
The whole thing is monstrous, absurd, and i'm.
famously wicked--a clear case Of notification
supported by 6endish attempt to subvert all
those principles which are necessary to be OBJ.
served in the dealings Of men, at the bidding
Of a mean, low, dishonest, and degraded fan.
aticism. But we will not insult our readers by
dwelling longer on this point.
The Providence Journal alludes to the legis.
lation Of South Carolina and Louisiana, under
which free negroes coming into those States
are put in confinement until they are ready tc
depart beyond their borders; and it pretcnds
to consider such legislation as being similar to
the Connecticut outrage. Surely it has not
considered the subject, for il it has, the profes
sions which it makes Of candor and fair deal
ing are intended as a deliberate fraud upon it:
readers There is no analogy between the
cases--none whatever. South Carolina and
Louisiana give TO the free blacks Of Massachu
sets the same privileges which their own free
blacks enjoy. But Massachusetts, chooses to