Year: 1864

In referring, few days ago, t, the historical
origin of the clause in the Constitution relating to
fugitive slaves, we stated that we had not then
seen the report on the subject made by Mr. Sena-
tor SUMNER, in behalf of " the select committee
of the Senate on slavery and the treatment of freed
men," to whom were referred sundry petitions
asking for the repeal of the fugitive slave act of
1885, and also asking for the repeal OF all acts for
tie rendition of fugitive slaves.


Since the date OF our allusion to this topic we
have had an opportunity of reading this elaborate
report of the distinguished Senator. 1t is hardly
necessary for to say that, like every thing ema-
mating from Mr.. Summers pen, it is marked by
great learning, and by an affluence of historical
citation bearing or less directly on the theme
as it is unfolded to his mind But when we state
that all this elaboration of argument and all this
array of authority are brought to defence of the
proposition that the clause in question does not
actually or legally embrace the case of fugitive
slaves in the scope of its terms, we imagine that
most readers will be tempted rather to admire the
skill and ing ,nuity of the essay than to admit its
conclusive force against the unbroken traditions OF
histo y and law in the United States for the last
eighty years


If Mr. sumner had directed the battery Of his
argument again t certain features OF the fugitive
slave law Of 1850 we conceive that he would have
had the almost universal concurrence Of generou
minds in the Loyal States. There are certain
features of that law which revolt the natural SEN
sibility of humane peopl and it was only be-
ciuse the law was passed one in series of CON-
promise acts that it extorted the general acqui-
escence and procured the general obedience of the
community Harsh as it was in some of its sane
tions, the place it occupied in the great adjust
ment of 1850" snf6ced to screen 1t from the odium
in which it might have been held as pure and
simple measure of statute Law.


But betsecn just animadyersions On the spirit
aud terms Of the fugitive slave act Of 1850 and a
total denial of the constitutional right Of the slave
holder TO reclaim fugitive from his service there
is wide interval of distaace. Where the current
of testimony and Legislation sets in one direction
from the days Of George Washington, the first
President, down to the days Of Abrah'm Lincoln,
the last, it is a case in which the maxim Of Vim
centus de Lcrins, quod semper, quod uJique, qa'od
al omnibus, may be taken test of truth, appl-
cable no less to the articles of the State founded
by the fiamers Of the Constitution than to the ar
ticles of the Church, as founded by the Apostles.
On topics which have engaged the attention of men
for generations, novel views labor at the very out
set under the disadvantage Of deserving be held
prinna tacie unfounded. In such matters it is
generally safe to say that the things which true





are not new, and that the things which are new
are not true.


We will give single illustration Of the perils
which be.ct the adventurous thesis of Senator
Sumner under this head, notwithstanding the
scholarly ability he brings to the support of his
proposition. Arguing to prove that the fugitive
slave clause, at the time of its adoption by the
Convention at Philadelphia, must have been re-
garded, according to received rules of interpreta
tion, as having no "positive" character, because
there were eminent members of the Convention
who, according to their declared opinions, could
never 'bav, consented to any such proposition, "ii
it had been supposed for moment to turn the lie.
public which they we're then organizing into .
mighty slave-hunter," he says:


There eat Gouverneur Norris who only short time
III "o"'"
concur IN uphoding domestic sapery 1t was nearlous
institution 1t the of Heaven on ths State
where it prevsiled There sat Oliver Ellsworth alter
wards Chief Justice who said in words which strike al
all support OF slavery ty the National Government: The
morality wisdom Of slavery considerations belonging
tn the States Themselves There sat Ebridge Gerry a
forwards Vice President, who openly declared that we
had nothing with the conduct the States slavery
but pe ought be careful not TO gipe any sanction TO
There sat Roger Sherman, who avowed that he op
posed to any tax slaves imported making the matter
worse because implied they ,oere property And, great
eat Of all there sat Benjamin Franklin who by character
and conviction every fibre of his moral and inelectua
being was pledged against any sanction of slavery. Who
can suppose that these wise and ustrious patrArchs
liberty all coneented, con not only TO sanction ala
very and recognise property IN man. but 10 put ken
mel of bloodhounds into the Constitution ready TO hun
tnr flying bondman They did no such thing; or " " !
insisted contrary receiDed 'pics 0 ,nrprefnf'on thn
such be the senfcaton Of their language, clearly
they did not understand it so"


Ii seems to us that the agguncntun al Uer'
cundiom, founded on the known views and decla
rations of these statesmen to the general matter
of slavery, can hardly be quoted in support Of the
deduction that the Senator draws from it in rcla
ton to this particular clause Of the Constitution
clause which, as we have already shown, had beer
cngrafted on the ordinance Of freedom" adopt
ed in 1887 with the entire unauimity Of the Con
gre.. of the Confederation, Cf VIC except Mr.
Vatas ol ;cb mas .;tt;no in New York aimu Ita