Randolph County journal. [volume] (Winchester, Randolph County, Ind.) 1855-1862, 1860-04-26

Il ~ AAaNQ t1hNQs dllu
Which he accuses Us of breaking; yet
he annouced to us that he is impatient
nay. .eager-fora symbol OF war from
the Old Dominion against the Consti-
tuition and the Union. | DO not use
bis exact language. though | have it
before me. He is ready and eager to
second her motion. Zone blast from
her bugle horn," he said. "would call
to their feet a million of men" \
million of men. sirl \ million of
men for what? Why, a million of
men to topple down the pillars OF this
Republic, and overwhelm the whole
country IN one universal ruin.
And all this the million of men
reused 10y the bugle horn of the Old
Dominion are to do next March, if
a Republican shall be elected, consti-
tntionally elected President. in No
vember. Does he not stand on high
ground. sir? / ask him to say. for
himself, that he occupies high vantage
ground, while charging us with trea-
son and violation of our oaths, when
ne is with the same breath threatening
topnll down the pillars of the Union.
Sir, if this is not treason. then | do not
know what it is. If it is not viola
tion of the oath to support the Consti-
tuition, then l do not understand the
import of the words. i know, indeed,
that these things are said in the heat
OF debate, and may mean but very lit
tie; but they GO out to the world as
deliberate debates, and therefore must
be noticed here.
And now | dismiss this point, and
pass from the defamation to the ar
gument of the gentleman from Georg-
ia; for, as | have said, he is among the
ablest of his class. No man is more
competent to make out ease against
the Republicans or the people of the
North. lie has deliberated long; he
has studied deeply, not merely i'll the
history of ancient and modern Europe,
but even in the history of ancient
Greece, to fortify his argument. What
does his accusation amount to? First,
we have not been quite nimble-footed
enough in executing this fugitive law.
He gives us not one instance, not
one case of delinquency. He is con-
tent with making general charge,
that we are faithless TO the Copstitu-
ton in this respect. Now, sir, l know
of no case of resistance to the execu-
ton of the fugitive law in the State of
Ohio. | know a great many men
there, who believe, before God and
man. that it is unconstitutional, yet |
know of no man who has stood forth
to resist its execution. On the con-
trary, whenever q case under it has
come before our courts, it has been
most vigorously executed. There
have been doubtful cases; there have
been cases in which there was little
room left for rloubt that the seeming,
remedies granted by thai law have
been perverted to the atrocious pur-
pose of kidnapping and carrying free
men into Slavery.
A citizen of Ohio, not long ago,
whose name | do not recollect, was
taken to ST. Louis, and there impris
oned under State law, to be sold into
Slavery to pay the charges of his de-
tention, until he was released by the
people of Ohio. This was no solitary
case; such cases frequently occur. /
meet the general charge with a gener-
al denial, and | assert that the people
of Ohio have not been faithless in the
execution of his most rigorous, odious
and, as | believe in many of its pro-
visions, unconstitutional law. l pass
briefly over the point that the consti-
tutional provision concerning fugitives
lcvolves on the State Governments,
and not npon Congress, the courts
having adiudicated that point against
my opinions. | will say, however,
that no lawyer would agree with the
courts, were it case of the first i'm
preston. / deny, moreover. that the
decisions of the courts have been uni
form, as the Senator from Georgia
claims. Judge Hornblower, of New
Jersy, on habeas corpus, held the law
unconstitutional, and discharged the
fugitive for that reason. We have
one Senator among us here Mr..
Wigfall) who thinks that the late
Mr.. Webster knew less of constitu-
tional law than most other men,
1t is not for me to re-establish Mr..
Webster; but whether he knew much
or little, it was his deliberate opinion
that the law had no warrant in the
Constitution, though he deferred to
decisions of the Courts.
i come now to your new fugitive
bill, which, in many Of its provisions.
/ have no doubt is unconstitutional;
and think in these points it has not
yet been judged constitutional. 1t is
not, however, my purpose to argue its
constitutionality. l meet in this case
as l did in the law of 1893, the vague
charge of unfaithfulness on our part
with a general denial. / call your
attention, sir, to the fact that there
prevails among the people very gen
orally an idea that many of the pro-
visions of that law are unconstitution-
al. This idea tends to produce irrita-
ton. Why do the people adopt the
idea that 1t is unconstitutional? The
subject being collateral, | will only
allude to that section of the law which
confers Judicial powers on commission
ers appointed by the courts, who are
not, and can not, thus appointed, be
judges, The people believe this pro-
vision unconstitutional. and so do |.
Again: the bill gives ten dollars for
decision in favor of the claimant,
and FIVE for decision In favor of the
fugitive. Gentlemen here have ridi-