Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1861-02-15
WHOLE NUMBER 26S.

IuglLlNe saves
j 2. The denial of equal rights in the Terrific
g rles.
g. The apprehension Of such an increase OF
political power in the free states as 10 tempt to
? an invasion, under new forms of the coustitu-
. ton, OF the rights Of the slave states to manage
their domestic affairs.
Afler full and calm examination Of all tho
grounds furnished to sustain these complaints,
, am ready to declare that if these arc all that
, endanger the continuance Of the present COM
mon bond of association between the states, in
my opinion no similar sacrifice TO mere abstrac-
ton was ever before made among reasoning
+ men. Let me proceed briefly to analyze them,
one by one.
And first. of the Personal Liberty laws.
Their origin is wen known 70 have been in tho
enactment Of the last fugitive slave law. Their
true purpose, to protect innocent freemen from
being dragged under the stringent provisions,
without trial and without defense, into ire
decmabe bondage. If, IN attempting to secure
this object, some Of them should have oyerstep-
ped the line so far as to obstruct the recama-
tou Of fugitive slaves, surely little may be
pardoned to the spirit Of liberty justly wounded
by the harsh and revolving features of the law.
So far from being constructed with any view to
effect its object that measure has always seem-
ed to me to have the appearance Of being made
purposely offensive in order to secure its nom.
execution so that complaints against the free
states might grow out Of it. Mr.. Speaker, il
there be one error into which the people Of the
/ United States most often fall, it is that Of legs
| latng oYer-much. In our eagemess TO remedy
all sorts of difficulties, are apt to forget that
under every form of government, the habits,
manners, modes Of BELIEF and forms Of educa-
ton, establish social barriers against which tho
best constructed statutes are made in vain.-
| Sometimes this happens because they want Wig
or, sometimes because they have too much.
A collision with popular prejudice, however
/ ll-founded, will annul the most benefcent law.
Dean Swift once reused the passions OF the Irish
people to such degree as to Danish from crcu-
laton new copper currency against which time
has shown there was not a single solid objec-
/ ton Thus it happens that the codes Of all
countries abound in obsolete laws. Such were
the sumptuary laws Of antquty-the often-re-
pcated attempts to regulate the price Of labor
I
alties for trdng ofences-the constant efforts to
/ fix the rates Of interest for the use of money
the well meant cndeavors to prohibit the sale Of
spurious liquor. Such was in fact the Fugitive
Slave law Of 1885, and for different reasons such
are likewise the Personal Liberty laws. In q
very large section Of the free states the former
is imperative, and always will be, and the reason
is that its harshuess against innocent men runs
counter to the sympathcs Of the people. 1t is
no matter how many laws you make about 1t,
| the more cruel they arc, the less sy.n Yum pv
likely to find them efficient. This is a law Of
human feeling which every man made with
heart can readily comprehend. Itis this which
makes personal liberty laws of no use Also
| The fugitive is never recovered because people
who think it cruel to return him, send him for
ward, and not because he has any imagined pro-
| lection in the statute book
If then you hope to counteract this tendency,
the right WAY to do it is not to increase but TO
soften the severity Of your law. Neither will it
avail much TO claim the repeal Of the personal
liberty laws which hare never been Of any prac-
tical use to anybody, bond Or free. This would
only leave You just where you were. The diff
Guilty is not ia the nature Of the reclamation. If
you are only proposing to dissolve the Union
because that difficulty cannot be removed, the
natural question viii spring up whether the
right Of reclamation in some shape or other sqc-
officially guaranteed TO you in the orglnic act Of
government Is not worth having at all. OF
course you wdi igEit 30, if you succeed in sep
aration. II sou To, in my humble opinion, you
will never get anything like such security again.
Your mistake seems to me to have been the de-
sire to use it too forcely. The measure now
proposed 10y the committee is based upon prin-
ciple Of justice calculated to soften the repug-
nance to the law in the free states, and to a cor
responding extent TO facilitate the recovery of
fugityes. But frankly confess, Mr.. Speaker,
my unwiIlingncss to participate in the responsi-
bility Of this kind Of legislation. am willing
to leave the question Of modification or other
wise to the representatives of the border states,
who are not Interested in j. as a practical regu.
lation. with us in Massachusetts, am free to
say that | think both the fugitive slave law Of
1850 and the personal liberty law consequent
upon It, arc obsolete upon the statute books. If
we are quarrcling about either or both, we mako
ground Of dispute about mere abstraction.
| ask the Shareholders, if you are going to dis
solve the Union about it on the one side, how arc
you likely TO improve your chances Of recovery
by that on the other. l ask my own friends, il
you are willing 70 stake the Union upon adher-
clIur to your co,,tteg-I0esislatia ynu mt
risRing substance for an abstraction? Sacrif-
cling a bencfccnt system 10 uphold a statute
which has never prevented the recovery of
single slave, nor secured the liberty Of a single
freeman.
And now come to the second, which has been
called the most serious eause Of dispute of all,
but which seems to me more Of an abstraction
than either. mean the complaint Of exclusion
from the territories. And first as to the matter
Of fact. Who excludes the Shareholders with
their slaves Have they not obtained an opn-
from the Supreme Court which will, in effect,
override any and every effort Of Congress against
them? They can if they choose now go wher-
ever they like on the public domain. There is
no majority in Congress itself to prevent their
going. even it they had the power. Why do
they not use that right; The reason is plain.
Il is not for their interest to go so far North
They will not leave the rich bottom lands, still
open for the profitable cultivation Of the cotton
plant in the South, to 60 to a comparatively arid
region farther of. The stakeholder follows his
own interest in applying his labor in that way
that viii yield the best results. Ifhe were conn
PEELED by law to remove TO any part Of the ter
ritory from which he now complains that he is
excluded, he would be apt to regard The decree