Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-03-11
The Personal Liberty Bill.


1850, and imposed the disgrace and punish
ment of disfranchisement for acting under those
laws. Your correspondent " Candor," express
ses u very complacent surprise at my Ignorance,
and asserts that these acts of Congress were de-
signed solely to apply to fugitive slaues, and
that any application of them to fugitives from
justice was wholly unnecessary, because the
Constitution of the United States, Art. 4, had
made ample provision as to these latter fug-
| tves
| Now if we admit that the design WAS thus
limited, is it not manifestly wrong and absurd
to impose penalty upon proper act that may
be done agreeably to the provisions Of these
laws? But the design was not thus limited.
By the LIST Section of the act of 1913, it is
provided that whenever the Executive of any
State OF Territory shall demand any person as a
| fugitive from justice of the Executive of any
State, and shall produce a copy of the indict-
ment found, Or an affidavit made before mag
istrate, charging the person 50 demanded with
1 OOLhhiieUOu tCUSOhj NiOHt VI OeHCl
crime, certified as authentic by the Governor or
chief magistrate of tile State or Territory from
which he fled, it shall be the duty of the Execu-
tive to cause him to be arrested, and give notice
of the arrest to the Executive making the de-.
mand, or to the agent appointed to receive the
fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be deliver
ed to such agent when he shall appear. But if
no such agent shall appear within six months Of
the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be dis
charged. All expenses and costs to be paid by
the State making the demand
The I'd Section empowers the agent to trans
port the fugitive to the State from which he
fled, and imposes penalty for rcscuing him
Tho remaining two Sections relate to fugitives
- held to labor
This act was passed in order to prescribe the
mode in which the provision of the Constitution
was to be extended, and because difficulties had
arisen in regard to it between the States
Judge Story, in delivering the opinion of the
Supreme Court of the [. s. in the case of Prigg
u. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, l6 Pc
ters' Sup. Ct. Rep. COS, uses the following Ian
guage -" In respect to fugitives from Justice,
the Constitution, although it expressly provides
that the demand shall be made by the Executive
authority of the State from which tho fugitive
has fed, is silent as to the party upon whom the
demand is to be made, and as to the mode in
which it shall be made. This very silence oc-
casioned embarrassments in enforcing the right
and duty at an early period after the adoption
of the Constitution and produced hesitation
on the part of the executive authority of Vir-
gmia to deliver up II fugitive from justice, upon
the demand Of the executive of Pennsylvania
in the year l70l and as we historically know
from the message of President Washington and
the public documents of that period, it was the
immediate cause Of the passing of the act of
1893, which designated the person (the State
executiva) upon whQm the demand should be
made, and tho mode and proofs upon and in
which it should BE- made From that time down
the present hour, not a doubt has been
'rcathed upon the constitutionality of this part
Of the act and every executive in the Union
has constantly acted upon and admitted its va
lidty. Yet the right and the duty are depend
ent, as to their mode of execution, solely on the
act of Congress and but for that, they would
remain a nominal right and passive duty; the
execution of which being entrusted to and re-
quired of no one in particular, all persons might
be at liberty to disregard it,
Yes, as WIS said by Judge Story, s. every ex-
ccutive in the Union has constantly acted un-
der - this act, and without the act, the provis-
ion of the Constitution in regard to fugtires
from justice would be practically nugatory.-
Every Governor and other officer aiding in deliv-
ering up criminal upon a requistion from an
other State, are compelled to act under this law
of 1898, and are constantly acting under it.
And yet this Personal Liberty Bill would dis
franchise them.
But more than this William Goodell who
is one of the ablcst Abolition writer's, argues
ingeniously and forcibly that the expression,
g held to service or labor" does not apply at all
to fugitive slaves, and adduces as proof of this
the fact that in the Convention that framed the
Constitution proposal to insert provision for
reclaiming fugitive slaves was secuted and aban-
donod. Senator Hale has argued from the same
fact in Il recent speech. The act of 1898 only
,da oIl IL, 1,b A.
toning slaves 50 that while % Candor is as
sorting 50 complacently that the act refers onlg
to fugitive slaves, some of the ablest Abolition
writers contend that it has no legitimate refer.
ence to slaves, and has full and proper scope
as applied to fugitives from Justice, and fugi-
tivcs from service, but has no application to flu.
gitives from service or labor unless held tc
service or labor" by valid contract. 1t must
be conceded to be historically true that the two
last Sections of the act of 1893 were intended
by the shareholders to include slaves; but is ii
either good policy or good logic in Anti-Slavery
men to concede that these Sections even may moi
have an ample purpose without any reference tc
slaves? 1t is an undoubted fact that these See.
tions have been taken advantage of to reclaim
apprentices
Z" Candor says that Sin less than an houl
after the Bill was introduced the previous qucs
ton was sustained by the House and freedom o
discussion was gagged" This is Incorrect
The bill had been long before introduced, hat
been printed and the printed copies had beer
in the hands of the members for many days.
The final action was had on one of the last day
of the session, when the press Of business wal
so great that the previous question was demand
ed on almost every question that produced mucl
debate. Although / regretted that the previ