St. Charles Republican intelligencer. (St. Charles [Charles City], Iowa) 1856-1857, 1856-10-09

been an ugly dog, was not emancipa.
ted. Mr.. Robert Tilford of Boyle Co.,
KY, has made an affidavit stating that
on the 9Th Of July, 1884, (months after
the prickings Of conscience mentioned
above, Mr.. Birney sold him the boy
Charles for $5O0l
So much for the integrity of the
Presidential candidate Of the abolition.
lists of that day. Afterwards we find
this same party supporting one Martin
Van Buren, for the Presidency, a man
who had previously, when President
pledged himself to veto any measure
for the abolition of slavery in the Dis
trict of Columbia or calculated in any
way to interfere with the rights of the
South, and who now only found it con
venient to asc the abolitionists to graf
ify a petty spite towards General
Cass whose election to the Presidency
he desired to defeat, even at the ex
pense Of giving; the election to the
Wings.
mention these facts, Messrs. Edi-
tors, in regard to the abolitionists sup
porting Mr.. Birney and Mr.. Van Buren,,
merely to show how destitute of prin-
ciple is that party-to show that place
and power and the acquisition of spoils
is all they desire-the welfare of their
country being minor consideration.
This was peculiarly the fact in that
hot-bed Of abolitionism, Massachusetts,,
only two years ago, when the entire
congressional delegation of that state
Except the Union-sliding Banks) were
defeated from a reelection, although
they had voted against the Kansas.
Nebraska bill, and had gone as far
as the hottest abolitionist among
them could desire. It was because
they were not of their party that these
hairbrained fanatics would not sustain
them in the effort to carry out the
wishes of their constituents. Having
obtained a majority in the Massachu.
sets Legislature, they at once pro.
ceeded to nullify the laws of Congress,
and actually passed what they termed
personal liberty BILL" setting al
defiance the fugitive law passed by
Congress in 1892, signed by the great
and good Washington, and amended
in 1850 under the administration O
Mr.. Fillmore. Our fathers agreed
when adopting the constitution, that
No person held to service or labor il
"one state under the laws thereof, es
Gaping into another, shall, in conse
"quence Of any law or regulation
therein, be discharged from such ser
twice or labor, but shall be delivered
"up on claim" The constitution also
declares that, the laws of Congress
shall be the Supreme laws of the
LAND" and that the Supreme Court
"shall be the final tribunal" Then
how silly for Massachusetts, abolition.
lists to pass their personal liberty
BILL" taking the fugitive, whether
black or white, from the U. S. Court
and bringing him before State tri-
bunal
The old Wing State of Vermont be-
came thoroughly imbued with aboli
tionism some years since, and in 1850
enacted law similar to that of Mas
sachusetts, being as rank notification
as was ever exhibited by South Caro-
lima. Every lawyer knows that IN
case of a conflict of the State and Fed.
eral courts upon the rendition of a flu
gitive slave, the State court will have
to succumb, though it require all the
troops Of the Government to effect the
object. Upon this Vermont law, the
Washington Union commented at the
time as follows
/" Modification in Vermont The cxtraordina-
ry act which has been recently passed by the
Legislature of Vermont, is probably designed,
us the very title and every section show, to in
terfere directly with the authority of the Fed
eral Government; to regulate the subject of
delivering up fugitive slaves. As such, it is
in the very teeth of the decision of the Su-
prcme Court of the United States in the case
Of Priggs vs. the State of Pennsylvania, in
which it was held that all state legislation OF
this nature on the subject was utterly null
and void. The Legislature and Governor OF
Vermont must have been lamentably ignorant
of their duties if they did not know this fact;
and If they did know it, what must we think
of their honesty in attempting to nullify a
provision of the Constitution of the United
States, which they must have sworn to sup
port?"
The Boston Traveller said:
ssWe regard the law of Vermont az utterly
repugnant to the Constitution of the United
States, and therefore disorderly and worthy Of
censure rather than imitation. A State Iegis-
lature is not the tribunal to decide upon the
constitutionality of a national law"
John Quincy Adams was one of the
most jealous and firm opponents Of
slavery that the North possessed, but
he was an honest man and man Of
sense 60 sacred did he reoard the