Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-03-24

Mr.. lSaulsbury-l move 20 amend the Oil Dy
inserting after the word due in the eleventh
line of the. first section the words, cor for the
purpose Of enticing or decoying such persons
held TO service or labor from the service Of their
loyal masters" l ask for the yeas and nays
the amendment. @,-
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr.. Anthony would inquire If officers of
the army and all other persons are not already
prohibited from enticing or decoying slaves2
Mr.. Howard-They are by heavy penalties.
MIR. Saulsbury-lf person exercising mill
tary authority comes to my State, where there is
no opposition TO Federal authority and where the
Federal laws are IN full exercise where nobody
is offering them resistance, and my slave escapes.
you prohibit the Federal officers from returning
him to me. / want, under such circumstances,
the same act to say that neither your Federal of
ticer, nor any person exercising power or author
ity under you, shall entice or decoy my slave
away from me, or shall entice or decoy the slave
OF any loyal citizens of my State, or any other
State, from the service of his master. If you say
you intend to keep your army aloof from this
question: but You do not intend that they shall re-
turn fugitive slaves, then all ask of you is, eat
when they came into loyal community it shall
not be lawful for them, nor for any person acting
under Federal authority, to entice or decoy my
slave or the slave of my constituents away. That
is the object of the Notwithstanding more,
nothing less.
Mr. Howard-If he did I suppose he would
simply make himself liable to the severe and al
most inhuman penalties of the fugitive slave law
OF 1850.
Mr.. Sherman-The laws of the State would
operate also.
the penalty prescribed by the law OF the State
where he is. l understand this bill as simply pro-
hibiting military men from disgracing the uni
form they wear, by engaging in the business of
slave catching and delivering slaves to their
owners disreputable business-in which no
gentleman, North or South, military or civil,
undertake to say. will willingly engage.
Mr. Saulsbury-Upon that question. there GER
tainly, as we all know is great difference of opin
ion in the country. This amendment of mine
does give some protection to the citizens of Mary
land and the citizens of Delaware and elsewhere.
Suppose your army goes into my State, suppose
it goes into the State of Maryland, into the lower
counties of the State of Maryland where it has
recently been, and suppose slaves are enticed
away as am informed they have been, by per-
sons pretending TO be soldiers of the United
States, want your law to say that the person
who engages in such dsreputable work that,
who will entice my slave or the slave of one of
my constituents away, shall be dismissed from
your service When YOU say that il my slave
goes where he is, be shall not return him, 1 want
you to say also that he shall not be the means of
depriving me OF my slave.
Mr.. Anthony-ln voting against this amend
ment, which shall do, l certainly do not wish it
to lie understood that | would vote to give any
| officer the right to entice slave from a loyal
master; but l understand that the law already
prohibits it. it is already an offense, and we are
only lie enacting another law.
| Mr.. cDougall-What the Senator from
| Rhode Island says is true; but the law passed bv
Congress. making it penal to entice away a per-
son held to service or labor, is not an article of
war, and there is a vast difference between the
laws on our statute books, which have to be in
forced through the courts of justice and the min
/ listers of the law, and that martial authority
which controls armed men in the field. Here it
is proposed by military law-the canons of mill
tary authority-to say that officers of the army
shall not interfere in the matter of the return of
/ fugitives by employing or directing their
subOrdinates, officers or men, to engage in
that business which is no Office of theirs
| By law, imposed upon them by no
law, would be mere volunteer act on their
part under any circumstances, except where they
had the particular personal custody of the person
held to service, ana hence would be bound, un-
der the Constitution, to render him up de-
mand When we legislate against interference
for the return would it not be well to say that as
you shall not employ your forces for the return
Of fugtives, they shall not be employed in inter-
meddling with the rights of those who hold these
persons to service or labor? 1t looks to me like
justice and measuring out equity and constitu-
tional provisions with even hand. have heard
as the Senator from Delaware has said, that per-
sons connected W tn the army in Maryland and
Delaware and in this District have been busy 60
ing about and saying to servants held to service
or labor by law, that they we're no longer bound
to render service. and have been disturbing the
interests and rights of those States. | can see
some justice and reason in this request, and we
say they shall not NEEDLE in favor of the master,
so think it but justice to say that they shall not
ntermeddle with the relations between the mas
ter and his servants, particularly in those States
where mischief may result, as l have been in
formed it is resulting here in these two States
and in the District If we mean to live up to
our constitutional obligations let us fully live up
| TO them. | can see no mischief in the amend
ment suggested by the Senator from Delaware,
aud | think it is placing the whole question upon
| its fair ground.
The question being taken by yeasand nays, re-
sulted-yeas 10, nays %, follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Bayard, Garlic, Davis, Hender-
son. Latham. McDougall Powell, Rice, Sauls-
bury and Wilson of Missouri--10.
| Nays-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chadnler,
Clark, Collsmer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fes-
sender. Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan Har-
ris. Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane
Of Kansas, Morrill,. Pomeroy, Wade, Wilson of
Massachusetts and Wrigkt-29.
So the amendment was rejected.
The bill was ordered to third reading and was
read the third time.
Mr.. Carlile-I ask for the yeas and nays on the
passage of this bill.
The yeas and nays were ordered and being Ia
ken resulted-yeas %, nays 9. as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler,
Clark, Collamer. Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden,
Foot, Foster, Grimes. Hale. Harlan, Harris. How
ard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kan
sas, McDougall. Morrill,, Pomeroy. Sherman,
Sumner. Ten Eyck. Trumbull. Wade, Wilson of
Massachusetts, and Wright--29.
Nays-Messls Bayard, Garlic, Davis, Hen
derson, Latham. Powell, Rice, Salisbury and
| Wilson of Missouri
| So tho hill Vvas n,ssad