Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1862-05-23

H.
the District 81 Columbla-
Since the abolition Of slavery IN the Dis
tgiol Of Columbia the slaves Of Maryland
ana Virginia have asd there in great num-
bsrs 10 secure thsir froodon. 10 many cases
hey have been followed demanded By their
masters, and delivered up by the pro-slsve-
y Marshal Lamon. So frequent and open
have thess efforts foe the reclamation Of fu-
aitivss become that The legality Of the tran
saolion is being discussed, and test case is
70 Be brought before the Supreme Court fos
discusaiou. OF the illegAlity OF the return
Of fueltiVes from the District, there can be
no question in the mind Of any one who exc
amInss the subject. Section 2 Of Article ".
Of the Consultation, from which all authority
for any return Of fugitives to their masters
is isdeFived, says that mo person held to ser
vice or labor In ore STATE, under the laws
Thereof, escaping into WOtksT, shall be dis
charged, 10" Here no authority Is given 70
60 into any territory or district only into
another Stat. The Fugitive Slave Law Of
1850, now known Is the Fugitive Slave Bill,
in section 9Th provides that when sny person
hsld 70 service or lsbOF In one Siats o. TsTTi-
toEy shall hereafter escape into
smother SiSts o. Territory, &c, be shall be
delivered up. Here no reference whatever
hmade to the District Of OolumbiA, and con-
Sequsntly It is not applicable to that Dis
trict. Section 10th Of the Bill provides that
when any person held 70 service or labor in
sny State OF Territory, ''or in the District Of
Columbia shall Escape tkerstrOm," i" be shall be
returned, but nowhere In the bill is there any
provision for the return Of slaves who e.
eape 70 the District.
Whatever may have been the reason Of it,
no provision was made in any Of the amend
usns or substitutes offered for Mr.. MasOn's
bin, during the session Of 1850. The amend
msnt BY Mr.. Pratt, Of Maryland, who would
be supposed to have = special interest in this
matter, said nothing Of the District provid-
ing Only for the return 70 any ''Ststs or Ter
Eitory." The bill offered BY Daniel Webster,
e the sane session, introduced June Sd,
1851 was couchsd in similar terms, and
s.id nothing Of the District.
With al these authorities In favor of ex-
snpaoa Of the District Of Columbia from the
operations Of the Fugitive Slave Law, the
GO esems a clear o1e.
But It may be argued that the laws which
were in operation in the State of Maryland
ct the time o. esding the District to the uni
ted ststes remained in operation in the Dis
triCt, under the sSt Of Congress Of 1901,
which reads:
HBs is enacted By The SsnGte and ROHss of
RsprasltgtiRSI Of tie Uaitsd States Of Amer
Ca n C5EgTssI assembled, That the laws Of
the Stats Of Maryland, as they now exist,
Ghau Be and continue In force In thas part Of
lie said District (the District Of Columbia
which was esded By that State o the United
States, and By them accepted IS Aforesaid"
This point was argued ia the early part Of
the present session of Congress By Senators
PsWsn Of Kentucky and POne1oy Of Kan
rs. The latter showed that the above act
rsfsEFsd only to laws that were in force in
MsEyland ct the time Of the eeding of the
District. At that tine-in 17sI-the only
lsW Of slavery in Maryland was one passed
in l7l5, provided that slaves and negroes i'm
ported into the colony and their immediate
children shall be slaves dur.ng their natural
lives; but It did not extend to descendants
gsnsrslly. There being, therefore, no law
for perpetual slavery in Maryland at the time
ths District was ceded, the subsequent laws
Of Maryland are not applicable. Therefore,
while the Fugitive Slave Law does not ap
Ply to the District but only to States;
nsithsF is there any State law Of Maryland
which attsins the same end. No fugitives
ean therefore be legally removed from the
District.