The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-12-14

WHen IL mas palu ltS telegrapn DlllS.
'sNational Fraternity,--The Fugitive
Slave Law and Personal Liberty
Laws.
The Winona Republican don't respond
very heartily to our suggestion, that it
should initiate the example Of the gallant
STEPHENS, of Georgia, and labor to put
down sectional fanaticism at the North.
1t depends with the Republican, and thou.
sands Of others in the free States, in preach
ing and practicing political moderation,
"whose OK is gored." No words are sufi-
cient to express their adherence of southern
fanaticism; but point to them instances of
northern notification, and it is quite diff
ferent matter. estate rights" 1.-THE very
argument used by the hot>heads of the
South are invoked, and columns of wordy
fustian expended, not addressed to the
reason of men, but intended to infame their
passions. The two extremes, north and
south, pursue an identical policy.
The Republican, and it is but one of a
class, "recoils from obedience to the Fugi-
tive slave law" Yet that law is in strict
accordance with the Constitution, and has
been so decided, over and over again, by the
highest tribunals in the land. The Consti.
tuition could never have been framed, had it
not contained provision for the rendition
of fugitive slaves. This has been disputed;
but Justice M'LEAN, of the Supreme Court
"a good Republican, and talked Of for Sec
rotary of State in the new Administration
in fugitive case which was before him, in
1853, made the following statement: with
out provision on the subject, no constitu-
ton could have been adopted. l speak from
information received from the late Chief JUS
tice MARSHALL, who was one of the chief
actors in that day, than whom no man living
was of higher authority" Mr.. WEBSTER
in speech delivered in May, 1851, said
that the Fugitive law "was right, proper,
expedient and just" He says, further, that
the fugitive provision in the Constitution,
was nowhere objected to, North or South,
but was considered as matter of absolute
right to the Southern States" Yet
many thousands of Northern men, like the
Winona Republican, "recoil from obedience
to the law" framed to carry out this pro-
vision of the Constitution. In what man
ner, then, does their conduct differ in guilt
from the notification Of the Disunionists of
the South? Each class of extremists pro-
pose to submit merely to that portion of the
Federal compact which confers benefits, but
each agree in repudiating every obligation
and duty imposed by the same instrument
The So called personal liberty laws are
intended for but one purpose, and that is to
nullify the provision of the Constitution
requiring the surrender of fugitive slaves.
This is sought to be done by harrassing the
owner, in the attempt to reclaim his pro-
perty, by penalties of fine and Imprisonment.
In seven States of the North, laws of this
character are on the statute books. No
claimant would encounter the risks that
attend him, in these States, in the prosecu.
ton Of his rights; and no more effectual
way of multiplying the Constitution and the
laws Of Congress could have been devised.
Yet the Supreme Court of the United
States, in the Prigg case, in which law of
Pennsylvania was declared unconstitutional
because it obstructed owners of slaves in
the recovery Of their property, declared,
Justice STORY delivering its opinion, that !:
"The slave is not to be discharged from
service or labor in consequence of any State
law Or regulation. Now, certainly, with
out indulging in any nicely of criticism
upon words, it may fairly and reasonably
be said, that any State law or State regula.
tion a0hich interrupts, limits, delays, or post
pones the right of the owner to the inamedi-
ate possession of the slave, and the immediate
command Of his service or labor, operates,
pro tanto, as discharge Of the slave there
FROM" No one, we suppose, will declare
that these personal liberty laws do not
interrupt, delay or postpone the right Of
the owner to the immediate possession Of
his slave" "Such regulations" the Court
then goes on to declare, " can never be per-.
mitted to interfere with, or to obstruct the
| inst rights of the owner to reclaim his slave