Litchfield enquirer., 1861-01-31
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CON- NECTICUT.

en, grew out of circumstances connected with the existence of Slavery in a portion of the States of this Union. It was further apparent that the leaders of civil commotion, in what are known as the Cotton States, did not desire the adoption of any remedial action by the General Government. Their object was the formation of Southern Confectionery, the recent Tres- dential Election furnishing them the op- portunity of precipitating a long meditated rev. olution.
 On the other hand, respectable minority in the Cotton States, and the great ma jority in the Border States, were loyal to the Union, but nearly as fanatical in their devotion to Slavery as the class above described. Their talk was of guarantees, concessions, compromis- es, without which, they would feel impelled to join the fortunes of the revolutionists
 I believe the people of Connecticut were un- willing either to give new guarantees to Slave ry, to yield more concessions 10 it, or to make further compromises with it. At the same time believed them willing to appeal in kindly spirit to the loyalty of the patriotic portion of the South, to remove unfounded apprehensions and to waive technicaIities where no principle was sacrificed thereby. At least, such were the motives which guided my own conduct through all the deliberations of the Committee.
 The President in his Message, had mentioned what are called the " Personal Liberty Bills,' as the most serious cause of complaint. and even declared that without their repeal no human power could save the Union. 1 was, therefore, greatly surprised, when, upon meeting with the Committee, I learned from the Southern mem- bers thereof that those Bills were but matters of trifing consideration, and that, though felt as grievance to some extent, the radical diff culty lay in the refusal by the friends of the in- coming Administration of PROTECTION TO SLAVE
 
 STATES, and it was insisted, that unless we were prepared so to amend the Constitut on~ as to confer that protection in all our Territories, present and future, where Slavery could pessi- ply be made profitable, no settlement whatever of the existing difficulties could be accomplish ed. As the people of the United States have very recently expressed their views upon this proposition in the most emphatic manner, the supporters both of Mr. Lincoln and of Mir. Douglas, in the late Presidential Election hay ing utterly repudiated it, and as their Judgment accorded with my own, felt no hesitation in voting against it, in whatever shape 1t appeared.
 Uron the rejection of this scheme hy the Committee, the greater portion of the South ern members left it, and did not return till the period arrived fer it's final action. Left thus wIrn0uU prrsruvc uiIusv wirosv ulleged grievances were sought to be redressed, the Committee proceeded to mature plans of it's own for an adjustment of affairs. 1t was pro- posed in general terms to amend the Fugitive Slave Law, so as to remove its more obnoxious features, to amend the Constitution so as to re-
 eye the apprehensions felt by the people of the South in regard to the possible interference of the General Government with Slavery in the States, and, in accordance with the Act of 1850 organizing the Territory of New Mexico, to pass sn enabling statute whereby her people might meet in Convention, adopt Constitu- ton and be admitted into the Union. The ob ject of the statute last named, was to close up the question of Slavery in. the Territories, so far as relates to our present possessions. There was no dispute about the region to the North ward of that Territory. and its Southern border was the Mexican boundary line. To these three propositions, in their general form, l was willing to assent, if the Southern members of the Con- mittee were disposed to accept them as a per manent and satisfactory adjustment. This, how ever. they consistently refused to do. They re- iected the amended Fugitive Slave Bill, while demanding the correlative resolution regarding the personal Liberty Bills. They demanded an amendment to the Constitution clothed in the most offensive form, and drawn so that instead of merely requiring the three-fourths of the States now necessary for the adoption of Con stitutional Amendments to include all the Slave holding States, it should need the assent of ev- cry State in the Republic. And at the same time they protested against the proposal for the admission of New Mexico; they declared that instead of being peace-offering, it would only add fuel to the fame- and make existing trouble worse. Why this should be so, unless thsy entertained the same opinion with myself that the people of New Mexico would again do as they did ten years ago, and form Constitu- tion prohibiting Slavery iH the new State am unable to conceive but even if this were so, the citizens of the South surely ought not to complain of strict compliance with the Con- promise Acts of 1850, which ali parties in 1850, solemly agreed to acquiesce in.
 Lastly, Bill was presented to the Commit tee altering the existing law regarding Fugtives from justice, so that the demand for their sur render should no longer be made upon the Gov ernor of the State in which they might be so- journing, but upon the Judge of the District Court of the United States for that District. The Bill met with the approval of majority of the Committee present. I could not agree to it. I regard it as the most dangerous law that has been proposed for fifty years. But the theory of our government, the sovereignty of a State until the State is willing to cease to exercise that protection for reasons satisfactory to itself A requirement. of the Constitution of the UnlIeu OtaCeS Is aiWayS a SatlSIacCOry reason, but the State must judge of the existence of facts sufficient to call such requisition into ac- tive operation. The executive authority of the State is the proper department for the exercise of this protection, and since 1793, all demands for the surrender of alleged fugitives from jus tice have been made upon the Governors of the States, in accordance with an Act of Congress passed in that year. It is now proposed to re- peal this law, and to confer the power hereto fore exercised by the Governors, upon the Fed eral Judges; men appointed by the President, holding office for life, and losing every year more and more of their sympathy with the vital feel ings of the State. The State is to be deprived of the power of protecting the person of it's own citizens, the writ of habeas corpus from a State Court is necessarily suspended, and cen tralization begnn equal to that dreamed of by the elder Adams.
 The object of this change is equally reprehen- hensible. It is expected that the Federal Courts will hold that if the crime, charged in the in- dictment or information, be crime under the laws of the state whence the person is alleged to have fed, although it be perfectly innocent and even praise-worthy action, in the State where he is seized, he shalfstill be delivered up so that the laws of the Slave States against in reference with what is termed slave property land against what they call ipcendiary docu.