Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-11-18
Rendition of Fugitive Slaves.

/
the Constitution that requires the rendition OF
fugitivss from labor That Article says s. no
person held to service or labor in one State by
the laws thereof, escaping to another, shall, in
consequence of any laws or regulations therein.
DO discharged from such service OF labor" The
inquiry is, how far the words 60 any laws or reg
ulations - may b. restricted in their signifca-
ton, and what laws and regulations were inten-
ded to be included in this prohi0ltory clause OF
the Article. Do they extend to all laws and
regulations of the State, or only those that re-
late to the Institution of Slavery? The Consti-
tuition is the supreme law Of the land, and we
must apply to it the same rules of construction
that we apply to other laws.
We must then pay particular attention to the
subject matter Those who claim the benefit of
this Article insist that that provision was made
for the benefit of Shareholders. IF SO, then
Slavery is the subject matter, and was in the
minds of the trainers of the Constitution when
they introduced this provision. Their attention
was upon that institution, and the language
they use should be taken to have reference to it
if this can reasonably be done.
Went take into consideration the condition
of the States at the time, and the laws already
made and to be made upon the same subject
matter All the Colonies forming the States
that adopted the Constitution were originally
slave-holding. At the time that instrument was
formed Massachusetts, and believe some other
States, had freed their slaves, and it was con-
fdently expected by the Convention that other
States would Immediately follow the example.
In order to abolish Slavery these State laws
would necessarily discharge from service or la
Dor " the Slaves within their own limits, and
would likewise . discharge from service or la
Dor" fugitive slaves from other States. Is il
unreasonable to conclude that laws and regula
tions made and to be made to release the slaves
% from their obligations of service f" were in the
contemplation of the Convention, and were thu
only laws intended to BE- included in the words
"any laws or regulations thereof? If so
bneu Juesc WOluS suOulu " Sd reSJrlcIeu to W III
cude them and should not be extended 50 as To
include any other laws or regulations not ap
plicabe to the subject Of Slavery?
If any authority is necessary to show tina
words may be thus restrained in their signifca
ton it may readily be found in case the De
lnocracy have not only sanctioned, but hav
pledged themselves to support. The Chief JUS
tce in giving the opinion of the Court in tn
case of bred Scott, quotes the first paragraph o
the Declaration of Independence, and frankl,
admits that the words are broad enough to in
clude the whole human family. As it was, a
he says. generally considered at the time tina
the African had no rights which white mai
, was bound to regard, the words should be re
strained in their meaning, so as to include onl
, the white race, to the exclusion Of the African
| have never seen the principle doubted, thong
, they have charged the Chief Justice of grossl
falsifying history. Now, if the Court wer
right in restricting the words, :" that all me
l are created equal" 50 as to exclude the Who'll
African race from their operation, may we no
with far more propriety restrain the sgnifca
ton of the words, % any law or regulation there
in" SO as to exclude from the prohibtory claus
I'LL laws and regulations of the State not mad
or the purpose of releasing the slave from hi
: obligation of service or labor?
4 If have given the true construction to thi
Y clause of the Constitution, then fugitive slav
4 residing in free State may acquire right
s wholly inconsistent with the claims of the mas
e ter, which would relieve the State from the oil
, legation to surrender HIM up. In a former com
: munication, for the purpose Of illustrating thi
| question, stated u case relating to the marrlag
f contract; let me now give you another fu
4 gitive residing in Vermont takes legal convey
q ance of land lying in Vermont. This by fore
/ of our law vests the title in him, and carrie
with it the right to possess, use, occupy and er
10y it. and he cannot be surrendered up and Cal
| ried into slavery without violating this right
By the law of the Slave States the conveyanc
would be void, and the land either be the prop
erty of the master, or escheat to the State. Nov
if the laws of Vermont govern the case, the
this State should refuse to surrender up the fu
gitive; but if 1t is governed by the laws of tn
State from which he fled then this title to q fret
y hold under our laws would not relieve this Stat
from the duty to surrender him up. Did tn
trainers of the Constitution intend that the law
of foreign State should be made to annul til
: laws that regulate the title to lands lying witt
= in our own limits This to me would be an III
reasonable construction of that article in til
i, Constitution for the rendition of fugitives frol
Y labor, and should not be given to it. SIS. B.
Jericho, Nov 9th, 1858.