Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1861-01-05

IT
1Ai' = =, Jones p siding, when was opened
: oieoossion s. the question, "Should the
us''N' Slave Law be obeyedsD The
,'i-'i native was upheld by Messrs. E. D.
Lowry, ]. W. Angel and FL. A. Moore /;
,, inc negative was sustained by Messrs. A.
Thompson, ]. White and d. Mckee.
The affirmative assumed the position
that the Constitution Of the United States
recognizes slaves as property and arg Jed
that the Fugitive Slave Law, being simply
a statute for the protection Of property,
should be obeyed The first speaker, in
opening his argument, said that in the dis
cussion Of this question we must go back
Of our sympatnies," and look at the facts
existing at the time Of the formation Of our
government, and reason from them; that
as it was a question with which "the heart"
has nothing to do, we must close the door
of our hearts, and make use of q the head"
alone that Congress had always regard
ed slaves as property, and had enacted a
Fugitive Slave Law as early as 1903; that
the present law was but revision of the
old one to make it more efficient, and that
its denial of ha5eas corpus to an arrested
fugitive IS perfectly proper, because a run
away slave has no right to a jury trial.
Another speaker in the affirmative took the
ground that as the principles Of justice vary
according to locality and condition of the
people to whom it is administered, it is not
right to judge the people Of the South as
we would judge those Of the North, and
that therefore, whatever may be or OBJ
jections to slavery in the abstract, we are
in duty bound to render practical obedience
to the law as it is. These were the prirci-
pal points urged by the affirmative.
The negative denied that the Constitu-
ton recognizes slaves as property, and chal-
lenged the other side to point to a single
sentence il that instrument in support Of
such an assumption; contended that the
Law of 1893, as well az that Of 1850, was
usurpation of power or the part Of Con-
gress not delegated by the Constitution ;
that the clause in the Constitution quoted
in behalf Of those acts simply defines the
duties Of the respective States in relation to
escaped slaves, but gives no power to Con
gress to act in the matter, and that there
fore ony Fugitive Slave Law enacted by
Congress is necessarily null ard void. This
point was ably maintained by txo speakers,
receiving most lucid exposition from Mr..
Mckee, who cited both laws and the Con
stitudon itself. A third speaker was for
lifting the question out of legal technical
ties and placing it upon the broad grounds
of urisalsal justice, where the atrocity Of
the statute in question was most conspicu-
GUS; where it would not be necessary to
exclude all truly human sympathies or to
" close the door Of our hearts, as demanded
bv one on the affirmative side, nor to look
at the principles of justice as varying to
suit various localities, according to the ar
Qumept Of another; but where it may be
viewed in strong contrast with the great
principle of Equality which it subverts and
wholly contemns. This speaker went on to
show wherein the Fugitive Slave Law to-
tally ignores the doctrine Of the equality Of
human rights, and proceeds in direct oppo-
sition to this Fundamental principle Of oui
system Of American liberty. He was called
to time before he had finished his argument
OF course it is understood that the senti-
ments advanced may or may not have been
the feal convictions Of the several speakers,
but simply their arguments in behalf Of the
positions to which they were allotted or had
for the time assumed.
The speakers on both sides complained
of being cramped for time by the rule
limiting them to Is and 20 minutes
and it was agreed that the question b
continued at the meeting on Tuesday even
ling next, at the same place.
4