Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-02-25
The Personal Liberty Bill.

Mr. EDITOR A somewhat remarkable COM
munication over the signature of en- pub
lished in the last Freeman, deserves passing
notice. Your correspondent says, "the passage
of the Personal Liberty Bill would have brought
ridcule and contempt upon both the Legsla-
ture and the people of Vermont" This is
strong language, and certainly a very severe re-
Election upon the sagacity of the men who voted
for, and advocated its passage. Allow me, in
few words to show the fallacious reasoning of
the author Of this article.
The act of 1893, entitled % An act respecting
fugitiyes from justice, and persons escaping
from the service of their masters" was passed
simply and only for the purpose of giving the
Shareholder the power to retake his Slave when
ever the Slave had fled from the jurisdiction OF
the State in which the master resided. The
whole history Of the act, the arguments pro and
con at the time of its passage, go to establish
the fact that THIS was the ONLY object sought
be obtained. And the act of 1850, entitled
" An Act to amend and supplementary to an
act respecting fugtives from justice and persons
escaping from tho service of their masters, =" was
passed, because the act of 1893 had become nu-
gatory on account of the strong Northern feel
ing against It,
Now " NJ" gravely tells us that a fatal defect
in the Personal Liberty bill, was, that it made
no provision for preserving that clause which
relates to " fugitive criminals and fugitive APP
prentices" Does not M" and every other
intelligent person know that the words q fugi
tives from justice - were inserted in the act Of
1893 simply to quiet the North, and throw
dust in the eyes of superficial readers? Does he
not know that Article 4th of the Constitution
of the United States, in its second section, fully
provides that, " A person charged in any State
with treason, felony, or OTHER CRIME, who shall
flee from justice, and be found in another State,
Shall on demand of the executive authority of
the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to
be removed to the State having Jurisdiction Of
the crime?" Does he not know that this Con-
sttution was adopted in 1787-six years prior
to the act of 1893? Does he not know that
this second section of Art. 4th of the Constitu-
ton covers the entire grOuud Of the rendition OF
fugitive criminals? And does he not know that
the act of 1898 was insisted upon by the South
when intelligent mon at the North questioned
the right of the Stakeholder to retake his runa-
way slave under the second and third clauses of
Sec of this article? And does he not further
know that tho Personal Liberty Bill, introduced
by Mr.. Needham of Hartford, did not in any
way, form or manner, interfere with this arti-
Gle of the Constitution; and that the power of
rendition Of fugitive criminals could not be in
terferred with by the abolition of the law of
1898, eren should it berepealed?
If he is ignorant of all this, would advise
him to read little more attentively the Consti-
tuition and history of his country.
Once more :: The dismissal of the Personal
Liberty Bill was not the only reprehensible
movement connected with the transaction In
less than an hour after the bill was introduced.
the previous question wassustaned by the House,
freedom OF discussion was gagged, and no OPP
portunty was given to the friends of the bill to
discuss it. viii your correspondent also excuse
this action on the part of the House?
1t is well that zeal should be tempered with
knowledge and fairness. CANDoR.