Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1861-01-18
REMARKS OF HON. J. coLLAmER.

REMARKS OF HON. J. COLLAMER.
OF VERMONT,
Explanatory Of the Vermont LHerty Lars.
a,lrred m The Senate oftbc Tinted Nates
Dec is, 1860
Mr. President
Without entering into the thread
Of the Senator s remarks, with which cen
orally agree, there has been a good deal said
about the action Of Vermont recently. in re-
fusng 10 repeal certain laws Much is said
aJout it, see, in the papers Of the South
wish the truth of that matter was all known
together. The whole story should be told
viii not occupy a great while wish that
could succeed in once obtaining a short at
tention Of gentlemen on the other side, who
seem to suppose that every law concerning
the cOlOred people in the free States is made
against the Fugitive Slave Law. They look
at 1t IN that light and | see that the one in
Vermont which is quoted is the act Of 1874
I see it quoted in the Constitution newspaper
as being Of the number When Senators
speak about there being opposition to the
Fugitive Slave Law, undoubtedly gentlemen
mean the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 Now
act Of Vermont was made six years before
that law was passed Ii had nothing to do
with it.
1t should be remembered that in 1912, in
the case of Prigg v the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of the
United States decided that the owner Of a
Fugitive Slave had 4 right 20 90 and recap
ture him in the same way that man might
recapture any other personal property, sub
iect To having a suit brought about it after
wards to try the title. The Supreme Court
decided that it would be Just Ike that, pro
vided the man, IN SO taxing his slave, did not
violate any State law. Now, ] say, it is TO
be borne in mind that the Court recognized
two modes Of reclaiming fugitive slaves. One
of them Is according 10 the Fugitive Slave
Law Of Congress, and the other Is the one l
have lust spoken of. Now the laws that
are made in any State, so far as | un-
derstand them, with regard to the recapture
OF reclamation OF slaves. have nothing what
ever TO do with proceedings under the Fugi-
tive Slave Law they relate to this other
branch-thIs other mode OF getting back
slaves The law was passed before the pre-
sent Fugitive Slave Law was enacted. There
was a Fugitive Slave Law in 1873, but any
man who will read this act of Vermont that
ls now quoted, and read it in the light of
what have now suggested to him, will see
that It does not relate at all to any action
under tire law of Congress. 1t goes upon the
basis that every State Is bound to protect its
own clt!zens-Its own people that are resi-
dents OF the State; those who are c0mmOrant
IN the State, let their color be what it may
That, presume, no one will deny. Then,
when 1t was said that man had right to
60 and take his slaves IN free State by mere
manucapuon, without resorting to any legal
process whatever, cannot any man have can
GOr enough to see that it was utterly lmp0s
sble to protect our cOlored people against
those persons who are kidnappers Hence 1t
was that we did what in effect the Supreme
Court Of the United States invited should be
done; that is, make such laws as would Sc
cure cur people in their rights against the
assertion OF the rights Of those who 90 to take
upon their own strength.
Mr.. johnson Of tennessee. ! would ask
the Senator, before he concludes what he has
10 say, if the Legislature of his State dld not
pass an additional law in 1858?
Mr. Collamer. | was about to remark that
there are some other laws; but the one
which is qnoted, the one which is relied
upon
Mr. johnson of tennessee. Well. sir.
was alluding to their laws generally, the
steps they have taken either in former times
or recently, which come in conflict with the
execution Of that provision Of the Constitu-
ton which provides for the restoration Of fu-
gitve slaves.
Mr. Collamer. Before | get through, the |
gentleman will hear all that have got to
say on that. do not want to occupy his /
time much but to complete my explanation |
must say a little more. | say that if any
man will read the law to which | have al |
-lded-the one that is quoted in the papers |
and read it in the light Of this decision, |
and in view of the facts of history, as they
have transpired, he Will see that it was not |
lictated by an enmity to the fugitive slave |
aS; because. while it imposes severe penal |
1@ upon the taking away Of colOred people, |
@lll9lects to punishment all who partici-
Ia'e 70 such transactions, it goes on to pro-
'--s, IN the last section of it, that this stat
4'e shall not be construed to extend to anv
0llge Of the United States court, or to anv
larsl haot the United States, or TO any Of
MS assistants. 1t has nothing to do with
the United States law. | concede that there
nave been two or three laws passed since the
compromise of 1850, though ! have not ex-
amlned them much and they were produced.
PARTICULARLY the act Of 1858, which is now
referred to, by what our people understood
TIE Supreme Court to say, that a colored
man, a descendant of an African, is a man
without any rights that any white person is
pound to respect at all. have never exam
iIea these recent statutes fully. 1t is very |
likely there may be features in them that |
are exceptionabe. But, Mr President, it is /
- be borne IN mind that the people Of the |
Tree States have never held the doctrine that |
State can nulliiy United States law. |
can easily see why people in the extreme
South who hold that State can nullifv a
United States law, think that here is an at
tempt to nulllly a law OF Congress Our
people never have held such a doctrine in
the world. The profession have raid vow
little attention to these statutes AT anv rat:
we look upon them just in this light H.
II there are any OF them which are in anv
way inconsistent with the United States Con-.
stitution, they are simply waste paper and
VOID. We ceny that State, by passing an
unconstitutional law, can take itself out of
the Union and we deny, too, that if one
State passes such a law, it can justify anoth-
er State in going out of the Union. Sucb
laws "a, are simply void under the Constitution
1hat is our view of t,and therefore thew are