The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-03-24


nom Nasfashnse it's ., orcse the legislation Of sister
SaAte. will prove It, therefore, IN form perfectly un-
exceptonsbe, and that 49, BY the legislation Of the State
Of Mass achusests do mot say that Massachu-
eets Ia 10 be taken as model State Ear from IT, But
DO mean 10 say that her political acts legislation in
ains the control Of public affairs Now what lie the sys
tenn Of Legislation In Massachu etsS For period Of near
twenty y.as has been guided almost exclusively by
Biops-by precisely those opinions which constitute
the animating spirit OF tho republican party-and
constitution Of the United States has been systemacally
deliberately and NAL cously aimed at the violation OF the
constitution Let Us reflect for moment the subject
Remember that hose United States confederation OF
States and that each of these States has domestic
sphere OF legislation, In which II n supreme; but that
each Of these States accorded to the federal govern
ment exclusive Jurisdiction certain subecS-things
which belong 10 the functions Of the general government
Now among these functions arc those which embrace
the foreign and domestic OF the state The const
aton accordingly aboulds Ia provisions the object Of
which IL 10 TO the citizen OF each State the enjoy
ent o. his right to personal property and among them
apecc security 10 The slave property OF the Southern
States Among others Of this class, have express
provision Of the constitution that person held
vice or to labor IN one State, under the laws thereof
escaping thererom into another State, SHALL In conse
quence Of any law or regulation therein be discharged
from such service or labor but shall be delivered up
on claim Of the party to whom such service or
Northern States, and the State Of Massachusetts
laws every OF which has and precise object
OF nulfy ing this International right conferred by the
CONSTITUTION OF Unte1 states. legislation
the year ls43 with TIE first personal liberty aw Of Hss.
chuses. That personal liberty law In its three sections
aimed exclusively ana solely and In express words ct
nuyDs the act Of Congress Of i7oe The effect Of ths;
and similar laws IN other States, to produce the ne
extradon act Of 1850 which but for those unoonsisu
the State Of Massachusetts, In 1856 passed another per-
sona liberty law to nuly the law OF Congress made in
act have for their express and sole object s
Of the constitution Of the United States and the acts OF
Congress which have been passed in pursuance Of the
constitution Indeed, 30 patent that assault upon that
constitution and the constitutional rights Of the Southern
Sates, that just at this time when The republican party
begins to be spprehensive that has pushed its anti
slavery fanatcism 10 point where II becomes intolera.
bic, that its mcmbera Of Congress beginning spolo
eze for this legislation and TO endeavor to show that
are these apologies A gentleman in Congress
from my own stste-Nr Henry l. Dawes-has had The
, mpudsncs to Io in his place and s.y that
sooh was passed 10 the year 1885, during the reign Of
the Americans But that excuse win not suffice 1t Is
direct vols,on OF the constuton-wAs revised and put
In force In the year 1885, under republican government
IN, and with republican public majority IN the STATE Nay
act revised In the revision Of statutes Of MAs
saChusets, SO that Is in vain 70 say that the repub
can party Is not responsible for it. Another excuse has
been suggested, and that by gentle nan from whom il
should not have Senator Coilamer Of the State Of
Vermont and Senator wade Of Ohio have declared that
these personal liberty laws were designed for the sole
protection Of the liberty OF the citizens Of the States in
which they enacted general contradiction Of this
falsely pretend the protection Of the citizen, yet ali en-
sctments are for the sole purpose Of nuyng the act
Congress for the rendition OF fugitive slaves These acs
imputed crime. white man 10 not in any
case, but . black man IN AL, 70 DO
no trial BY jury is provided BY these laws Wen, whss
thenY When fugitive from the justice Of Connecticut
takes refuge Massachusetts, is he entitled to tai BY
jury in Massachusetts No he sent back to b tried By
tho law Of the State where tho crime committed
Nor ID the rule confined 70 criminal natsera II debtor
absoonds nom Connecticut into Massachusetts, his bah
may retake him without any impediment Of personal
State Of his domicil for TRIAL the right 3d. your
into Massachusetts, you may bring them back even With
out process OF law All these are cases Of white persons
Ss s e
slaves 70 b. Ue great rule Of International comfy
in all Cbrstendoia and the express rule Of the ccnsu
acquired or existing in another stase and the rights
Of property or persons be determined according 70
c Runaway slaves rom Se virginia and Mysud arc no.
cizens OF Massachusetts or people Of Massachusetts,
either necessarily generally BY the unconstitutional
voters after Twelve ~hs ~Se . sm
grants from Europe, although citizens OF the United States
Ss nrssnce er @ % ~ sss
laws, which Mr.. Colamer and Ar. Wade rest,
false ones false pretenoe dsgraceful 70 the Legs
because deliberately designed 70 cover and conceal the
fragrant violation Of the constitution Of the United Sasss
I vioase those provons q the oonsuion
OF the United States Intended for the protection II the
terstate commercial and social intercourse, and the
cprocal security OF personal property within the different
States II II another great principle Of International
comfy in all Chrktendom that, general rule every
by the law Of bis domc Or Ia effect that OF the State Of
which he citizen Thus 3 that citizen Of the United
ates goes Paris to scourn or to pass through France
his way TO Italy, with perfect sense Of security
gard 10 all bis individual rights 70 person property.
He has not the least fear Of being stripped Of his apparel
or baggage as be might Be among the barbarous
people OF Asia Africa Tina, the great distinction be-
tween the civilized and savage States 30 also in France
or Germany, II accompanied by his wife and children he
knows oil that the matrimonial and parental rights apper
tanning him by the Law Of hi own country viii respect
ed In the country OF his fsnstory sojourn That s the
tarnatona comfy ofChristian Europe America. STILL
abridged by the local law Now in establishing the con-
federation Of the United States wise forefaahers
those very fathers under whose opinions or example the
their unconstitutional acts and purposes-I cay
wise forefahers that would not do to leave this
erection Of the different States Accordingly they inserted
in the Constitution the following provision
The citizens Of each State shall entitled 70 all he PRIV
leges and nnmuniues Of citizens In Tho several stasss
This provision Of great importance, Of far more, in.
deed than commonly supposed Let US reflect upon f.
and merchandise for sale having board BE- sides the
crew, his wife child and an Ddented apprentice What
pEcVenB GtAte VI COuuoC8bnk Tue snip
and ca1gop When the State officer take posses
zion Of H. viii you urge that s your propertyf But the
Slate Of Maryland may reply, that local law and we
don't for the local law Of Connecticut. Besdes tho
State Of Maryland show the statute Of Connect
cut which expressly authorizes you ship,
the coat upon your back We do not believe you find
any such express Law the statute book Of Connecticut
&c. as you have nothing 70 protect your ship and cargo,
except local law, and cannot even produce that tho
State Of Maryland seems to have good against you
Worse than that: your wife, who 10 with you,
has been in the. habit, at home, OF attend
ing abolition and womens' rights meetings,
and has thus got pretty large notions OF liberty
her head and she sees ht 70 leave you taking your child
and apprentice with her. and perhaps all the contents Of
your cash box and proceeds 10 establish herse In free
coadition at Balnums What are you going 70 doP VIII
you appeal to the courts Of Maryland for redress
tending that the lady s your wife, the child under
your authority, she apprentice held TO by the
laws Of Connecticut All but the State OF Maryland
may reply, that is your local Law; what do Tor
that That Il what the State Of Maryland would say,
both to your property AMI your family s legislators
bad been corrupted too many Of ours have been,
the faDacem Of unconstitutional interstate hostility.
They might pass personal liberty laws Massachusetts,
and other States have done under tho false pretenoe