Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-02-26


againt Parsons.
Mr. Tucker then gives an outline of the
testimony and trial which resulted in noHe
prosequi, and the discharge, of Parsons. The
following is the conclusion OF hislreport.
/ shall not transcend the limits Of my duty, if
| venture some views upon this and kindred
cases.
! am satisfied that in the community in which
this outrage upon young Parsons was COM
mitted, the mass of the people are at heart
opposed to the proceeding against him. Why,
then, was it permitted? Why was q judicial
proceeding against him made the means of a
slave rescue in the midst of soundthinking,
law-abiding people? Can it be supposed that
Southern men will continue to be satisfied with
nolte prosequi at the close of proceeding
against citizen, after an eager and wanton
prosecution for months, and an open depriya
ton of his property, by outlaw mobs, in the
face of the parchment guarantees of constitu
tons and laws? Are their complaints to be
soothed by assurances that there were three
sound thinkers in the community to- one Uiola-
tor Of laW2 s
That faith whIch does not realize itself in act,
is dead. Sound sentiment is to be approved, but
it is as useless as if false unless it stimulates to
action in favor of law and order. Public senti-
ment, where it is sound, must become yigiant
to arrest violations of law, and to protect
constitutional rights from the assaults of mob
and fanatics. a
But even this alone will not suffice. The
kidnapping Of a free person is crime in every
State. There is no fault in the Pennsylvania
statute in Furnishing it. Our own statute does
so. Nor can we complain, that when any
person makes the usual oath, a magistrate OF a
N If
and investigate the charge against him. This
our laws permit and rightfnlly. !.
What, then, is our ground of complaint? 1t
is this: That the law-making power of the
free States sees fanaticsm peryerting their
criminal process into an engine Of deadly
hostility to the constitutional rights OF our
citizens; it seems abolition with one hand
using the power of the State to bind the master,
while with the other it unbinds his slave. The
law-making power of the free States sees this,
and can, but does not, and, in some States, acilt
not, prevent it. es63 sa..
Take the simplest. and clearest Casa
citizen Of Virginia wishes to reclaim a fugitive.
No commissioner under the fugitive act of
1850 is within one hundred and fifty miles. He
meets his slave upon the street, seiZes him and
is carrying him home, as he may do aoittout
other Earrdnt than the Constitution. Fanati-
cism makes oath that he is a kidnapper-a
disturber ofthe public peace; and he is arrested.
What becomes Of his slave? He is released
ca necessitate. The prosecution for kidnapping
proceeds to nolle p1osequi and the accused is
to be profoundly grateful that it does not end
in demanding him to State prison for term
of years
The case imagined is almost the narrative !
have given. Where is the remedy? Not in
the power of Congress; but in the power OF the
State to prevent the use of its judicial process
for unconstitutional, illegal, and violent pur-
poses. ef ste1
While it is not necessary within my province
to suggest to you remedies which the free
States should apply TO this great, growing, and
alarming evil, you will pardon me for doing
so.
Whether it be the duty of free States to aid
by all means in their power in the recovery Of
fugitive slaves may be mooted by others than
those who believe the Constitution to be a COM
pact, and the Union confederacy based upon
it. ALL who so believe, can never doubt that
the obligation of the second section and fourth
article of the Federal Constitution is upon the
political conscience Of every member of the
confederacy-and that the terms of the COM
pact, "shall be delivered up" are imperative
upon demanding activity on the part of the
States not permissive, allowing passing lndIf-
ference. AS Commonwealth on behalf Of
her citizens, Virginia comes to the free States,
armed with the mandatory "shalln of the Con-
stitution, for the delivery of his fugitive slave.
But of this, no one can doubt-that whether
the provision is binding upon the State, as such,
or not, the State is bound to do nothing which,
in any way, will obstruct the delivery Of the
slave under the mdndan,us Of the Constitution;
and is further bound to remove every obstruc-
ton which its laws oppose to the shareholders
claim. 1t must not only throw no obstacles in
his way, but remove all, and permit none under
its authority; and punish, with heavy penalty,
the lawless offender who places his fanaticism
above the Constitution, and covers his outrage
upon its provisions with the judicial process of
the State.
The State might do more-and what, practi-
caly, would be sufficient 1t might provide
that in every case in which a prosecution was
commenced against any person from a slave
holding State, claiming 70 be in pursuit of, or
having in possession, his slave, it should be the
duty Of the officer arresting the master, to Sc
cure the slave and commit him, until the ques-
ton of status should be enquired into; and in
no case 10 make the arrest OF the master, so as
TO effect the release of the slave. Some such
law would save the property of the master, des-
pite the false prosecutions; and thus, by re-
moving the motive to the latter, would prevent
the recurrence of such outrages.
If some such Legislative changes are not
made, fanaticism will rejoice with us in the re
suits Of such prosecutions as those against
young Parsons for while we may properly feel
satisfaction that the courts Of sister State will
still do justice to Virginia citizen, Abolition
will see, in the negro rescued under the sanction
of State prosecution against the master, am
pie reward for its falsity and a powerful stimu-
lus TO continuance Of the system.
Mr.. Tucker, after referring to the position
taken by Virginia in the case of Parsons, as
showing her "stern determination TO stretch
forth her arm to protect and defend her inno-
cent citizen" he proceeds:
In the case Of Parsons, where the testimony
was SO strong as to destroy the prosecution, no
difficulty has arisen. Yet, under a law and
practice in Pennsylvania, result might be
reached in a similar case too important to be
overlooked.
AS was informed, in the case Of Parsons,
no appeal could be taken upon any ruling Of