M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1860-02-23

NV NhebNt lLlo oCCtlOll VI VIC Dlls Ill
the year 1888 there was upon the
statute book of the State of New York
an act Of which the following is a sec
tion:
"Any person hot being an inhabitant of this
State who shall be travelling to or from, or pass
ing through this State, may bring with them ony
person lawfully held by him in slavery, and may
take such person with him from this State but
the person so held in slavery shall not reside OF
continue in this 9tate more than nine months and
If such residence be continued heyond that Time
such person shall be free.n
A distinguished gentleman was al
the time ! have named a candidate foi
Governor OF New York. A letter was
addressed to him by that pair of pat,
riots, Gerrit Smith and William Jay,
inquiring OF the candidate whether he
was in favor ofthe section | have Just
read.
Here is an extract from his answer:
"But gentlemen being desirous to be entirely
candid in this communication it is proper sho'd
add, am not convinced it would be either wise
ex?edient or humane to declare to our fellow cit
liens of the Southern or Southwestern States
that If they travel to or FROM OF pass through tho
State Of New York they shall not bring with
them the attendants whom custom or education
or habit may have rendered necessary to hem
have not been able to discover the object to be
attained by such AN act Of NHOsPITALlTY. 1t GER
tainly can work no injury to us nor can it be in
furious to the unfortunate beings held in bondage
once perhaps in their lives, and at most on oc-
casions few and far betH cen to visit u country
where slavery il unknown. will not
press the considerations flowing from the nature
OF our Union and the mutual concessions on
which it Was founded against the propriety of
such an exclrsionas your question eontemplates." }"
What Northern man with Southern
principles, what democratic dough-
face, what lickspittle and tool OF the
slave power, wrote and printed such
sentiments as these2 None other sir,
than William II. Seward, the man
who made the Republican party, and
now holds it in the hollow ofhis hand.
Like the centurion in Scripture, he is
a man in authority He says to this
Republican, go, and he goeth, and to
another come, and he colnoth. Let
the friends of this bill answer Mr..
Seward first before they call on us for
the reason Of our opposition to this
section. Let them show us that the
passage Of this bill will not be an act
OF "inhospitality" TO our Southern
brethren, and that it IS consistent with
''the considerations flowing from the
nature OF our Union and the mutual
concessions on which 1t was founded"
before we are required to make furth-
er objection to this section.
The third section Of the bill pro
vides that
"Ifany person shall soiEo or arrest, or shall at
tempt to seize or arrest, or shall aid in Selling
arresting or in attempting to seize or arrest, or
shall use any force or fraud for the purpose of
holding, detaining, controlling or influencing any
other person with intent to carry or remove such
person out Of this State or with intent to cause
such person voluntarily to depart out Of this State
in order that such person may be taken, held, or
controlled as Il slave in some other State terrific
be deemed guilty of kidnapping, and shall be
punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary at
hard labor, not less than three, nor more than
Eve years"
If the object of this section is simp.
ly to provide in good faith for the pun.
ishment Of the crime of kidnapping, |
object to it because it is entirely un-
necessary. by reference to Swans
Revised Statutes, page 27G, law
will be found which makes kidnap.
ping a crime, and dehounces severe
penalties against it, and this act has
been npon the statute books ever since
the year 1881. .
But, sir, | believe that the design
of the friends OF this section goes tar.
ther than what | have indicated. -
Their object is to prevent the owner Of
a slave escaped into the State Of Ohio
from seizing and removing him with.
cut legal process, and a careful ex.
animation Of the fourth section of the
bill shows that this is not one of the
cases excepted by that section.
Taking this to be the purpose Of this
section, | object to it, because it is a
violation Of = the constitution of the
United States, and to establish this II
call attention to some points decided
by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of Priggs vs.. the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. =
The facts in that case were these: Ed.
ward Prigg, citizen oil Maryland, as
the agent 81 Margaret Ashmore, went
into the State Of Pennsylvania and
without legal process seized and car.
ried back to Maryland certain slaves,
the property Of Margaret Ashmore,
that had escaped into Pennsylvania.
Prigg was indicted under a section of
a law of Pennsylvania, which was the
same in Substance and almost the
same in letter as the section of this
bill now under consideration. He was
convicted, and his case was thereupon
taken to the Supreme Court OF the
United State by a writ of error to the
Supreme Conrt of Pennsylvania. The
Court, NJ. Justice Story delivering its
opinion, said: ai siaa.l
"The Court has not the slightest hesitation in
holding that under and in virtue of the Constitu-
81, 80 ala u al ha1
ty in every State ofthe Union to seize and recap
fnrn his- slnua urhnnavnr hn cnn dn IL uithnnt n