The Van Buren press., 1860-01-20

--zz<----el-1l
would be hstter. IN ny opiniou, Il tkoss
who act approval. but ray they disapproye
had come, ont openly and boldly, with
Wendell Phillips, and iustified the outrage
and regretted the faiinre. Weshould then
know whore 70 find them. What more
could they do to honor the memory of John
Brown. if they avowed N approvol Of ali
his proceedings, than they have already
done, and are doing If they honor him
in his bloody failure, would they have hon
ored him the less Il he had been successful
with his provisioual government |,
One Of the worst rcfiections attending
this Hsrper's Ferry forxy b that it indi-
Gates the result Of . mora diseased public
sentiment than we wcre aware of. We
have been gradually, imperceptibly losing
eur ancient veneration for the Union. You
have seen it in the disruption Of religious
ldenominations. You have seen it in state
Legislation. too often carried through fol
fear ef oiient1iag actixs. managing and f..
nAtseal nagl - 7aWt have operated ot
the snciaf fsaiiihs xi1d fhs farmer friendly
intercourse. The laws Of trxRsit have been
repealed. To make myself better under.
stood, will observe that those of the old
thirteen that saw fit to abolish slavery with
in their own limits, all of them, believe,
passed laws, allowing the free transit o,
temporary residence of their brethren from
other States who might visit them. and
bring their servants or slaves with them
We had such a law in Connecticut, wheth-
er it now exists am unable to say, but my
impression is, that by some recent general
enactment. passed by our Legislature during
the excitement of Judge Kane's decision as
to the right of transit in Philadelphia, il
has been abolished from our statute book.
The object of it was, as our own Supreme
Court declared in 1887, mot to give Of.
fence to our sister states, by impeding then
citizens in travelling through the State with
their servants or slaves"
There was similar law in the State oi
New York, indeed their law went much
farther than ours, for it allowed the mastei
with his slave from another State, to re-
side nine months in New York, if he pleas
ed without being interfered with. InlS3S
the present distinguished Senator from New
York, Mr.. Seward, was a candidate for
Governor, and his competitor was the late
Governor Marcy. The question was put
to both candidates during the canvass
whether they were for or against the con-
tinuance of that law. 1t came up more
as moral question than political one
and they both promptly answered that they
were in favor of its continuance. That was
time when there had been no Jerry rescues
thought of in the State of New York. ]
beg leave to read short extract from Mr.
Stewards letter in response to the commit
tees enquiry. Here it is.
But. gentlemen, being dcsirous to be
entirely candid in this communication, it il
PsvPor te ssy. Ahas I sm not convinced thai
it would be. either wise, expedient, or hu-
mane, to declare to our fellow citizens O.
the southern and the southeast
ern States, that if they travel to or from OF
pass through the State of New York, they
shall not bring with them the attendants
whom custom or education, or habit NAV
have rendered necessary to them l have
not been able to discover any good object
to be attained by such an act of inhospital-
ity." (Sensation.
What Glance for the popular favor in the
State of New York, would Mr.. Seward
have now, should he re- affirm what he then
said ? This act has since been stricken
from the statutes of New York, as 1 believe
have been similar enactments in other nor.
thern States.
We hear much said of the good old
times in the early administration of this
govcrnment-the administration of Wash
ington and Jefferson. They certainly de-
serve and should receive our highest praise
But these fraternal State laws to which ]
have referred, were in full force in those
days, and they contributed very much to
the harmonious and satisfactory admins
tlation of the general government. If we
should be restored to those good old times
these enactments would of course follow in
the restoration. Indeed they were in exist
ence much later than the early administra-
tions we had them in the times of John
Quincy Adams and jackson. and at CON
siderably later period still, for it is only
quite recently that they have been repealed
Those whose hot haste for the abolition
of slavery everywhere, leeds them to palli
ate, though not to justify, the Brown move
ment, should look more carefully, at the
extreme caution, the gradual, the very slow
proceedings that marked the movements o.
our fathers in dealing with this subject
| The remnant of slavery under their legisla
ton, fingered among us till p very few year,
ago. AS late as 1881, our highest court il
deciding case which had reference to
colored female Of this State, said-in tn
language Of one Of the judges this slav
did not vest in the heirs, hut being person
al property was assets in the hands Of tn
executor.
Another Of the learned Judges said =
"Flora, not being specifically devised. wa
transferred to the defendants, and being
chattel vested in them"
4 This. mark you, was by Connection
court and under Connecticut law. +" chat
ties land I" personal property !" and " as
/ aets = when these terms are used by south
ern jndges in reference to human beings
they are paraded in capitals before the pub
lie as horrible evidences of barbarism, b
men who choose to be oblivious Of wha
their own most honored jurists have decid
ed and said. when administering their ow
d laws. The decision to which I refer, i
b which the language which have quote
was used, is reported in the 8 Of Connccti
cut, and is the cass of East Hartford an
Pitkin.
4 Why, fellow citizens, we have not to thi
ID IN M, arr irtyk xa4 fia 4caacon IA