Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1860-04-06
THE STATES HAVE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS TO
PROTECT THEIR OWN CITIZENS.

| THE STATES HAVE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS TO
PROTECT THEIR own CITIZENS.
But it will not do, they say, to have a
! Republican President chosen it will be a
cause of dissolution. Why? Because they
say some of the free States have passed un-
| friendly laws to that provision of the ConstI-
tuition about flgitives from labor. Mr.
! President, IN relation to those laws, | would
call gentlemen s attention TO this. it certain
tainly is the EXCLUSIVE duty and obligation.
as well as privilege, of every State to protect
the liberties and lives and property of its
own citizens. | say it is exclusively their
| duty within their own territory.
| | not very unfrequently. especially among
unlettered people, hear it asked, why Con-
gresss cannot abolish slavery? and cannot
| but say that [ think at times there have
been some mistaken notions, like those sug-
| gested by the senator from Texas. about this
being consolidated Government, and talk
| of that kind. Take the plainest case mag
Unable. Here is a man, it you please, IN
northern State, confined by another as a la
borer in his cellar, chained for years. The
whole power of the United States Govern
ment cannot affect it. They have no power
to grant any relief. Just so in the southern
| States; no matter how many men they hold
in bondage, if you call it such, it is matter
exclusively theirs Congress has no power
over it. If they as some of them do, pro.
pose to reduce to bondage large number of
men who are free, no matter now we may
look on it, it is utterly beyond the reach Of
the power of Congress. So, on the other
hand, take it, the right and duty to pro-
tect their own citizens in their liberties and
lives is the exclusive duty and privilege of
the States.
In 1912, cBIne the decision of the Prigg
case. That case contained some pretty i'm
portant things, new to the country at that
time. We may have become familiarized
with them now but they called for tho ac-
ton of the States
The Supreme Court decided in that case
that the owner of fugitive slave had the
right to pursue him into free State, with
out any process whatever, to take that slave,
recapture him, and carry him home. take
it that it is the privilege and duty of every
State, to so arrange the manner in which a
man exercises his rights, that the rights and
privileges of others may be secure. That is
matter Of legitimate legislation. We have,
for instance. in the State 10 which | live, Il
considerable plumber of free colored citizens
do not know their number nova tnOu-
sand, perhaps more. They are just as much
entitled to the protection of the laws as the
white men. When this opinion was pro-
nounced by the Supreme Court, that per-
son could come there and take a man, claim
ing him as fugitive slave, and carry him
away without any process whatever, for the
court said he might do it, if so be that he
committed no illegal violence-was it not
obvious that our colored population could be
in no way safe, l do not say against honest
and honorable shareholders, but against all
men who might come to claim them-slave
dealers? They could not be safe, if there
was to be no process, if no court was to pass