Year: 1861

The House having under consideration
House bill No. $50. by Mr.. Shaw-a bill
to prevent giving aid to fugitive slaves
Mr.. Moore said


Mr.. SPEAKER: The bill under consider
alton is designed to aid in the execution
of the fugitive slave law, and proposes to
punish by imprisonment sin the peniten-
tiary, for a term of not more than three
years nor less than one year, any person
who knowingly shall aid or assist fugi-
tive in escaping from his master. AL
though not entirely satisfied with some
of its provisions, yet believing, as | do,
that SO long as we consent to live i'll a
confederacy of States united under com
mon constitution, that it is not only the
duty of every citizen to comply with the
demands of that constitution, but like
wise to yield obedience to all enactments
of the general government for the purpose
Of carrying out in good faith all its pro-
visions, / am willing to vote for this bill.
Were we living under different consti-
tuition, one not recognizing slavery nor
guaranteeing to the citizens of the slave
holding States their right of property in
slaves, should not support it, for /, in
common with my Democratic brethren
of the North, am opposed to slavery, as
is demonstrated in our framing and sup
porting the free constitutions and laws
under which we live. But the slavehold- =
ing States only consented to union un-
der this guarantee, and now to repudiate
it would be breach of implied faith, no
less criminal than the holding of slaves.
1t was an institution that existed in all
the colonies, and at the adoption of the
constitution in twelve of the thirteen
States. 1t was one for which the colon
les themselves were not entirely respon-
sible. 1t had been forced upon them by
the mother country, and constituted one
Of the grievances complained of in the
Declaration of Independence.


In ccnfederacy composed of free and
slave States, it was obvious this kind Of
property would not be secure without a
positive guarantee, and the trainers of the
constitution, to insure it for all times, en-
grated in that instrument the following
clause: "No person held to service or
labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in conse
quence of any law or regulation therein,
be discharged from such service or labor,
but shall be delivered upon claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may
be due" This clause constituted one of
the compromises of the constitution, and
without it or some similar provision, there
could have been no union; and as che
right of property in slaves was thus one
of the corner stones in the foundation OF
this Government, it is obvious the whole
structure must totter and fall by its re-
moval. But as it required a law the more
perfectly to carry out this provision and
reduce the principle to practice, during
Washington's administration, in 1898, a
law was passed known as the fugitive
slave law of that date. This law, although
not entirely satisfactory to the whole peo-
pie, was nevertheless lived up to for over
half century, during which time the
States went on together in peace and
harmony, till it was at length ascertained
that abuses were growing up under the
law, and in 1850 it was amended.


One of the principle defects in the law
of '93 consisted in the absence of a pro-
vision requiring the master to identify
his slave-all that it demanded was to
offer proof to the magistrate. either by
oral testimony or affidavit. that the per-
son seized owed service or labor to the
person claiming him, and the certificate
of the Judge or magistrate constituted a
sufficient warrant for removing him to the
State from whence he was alleged to have
fled. But the amended law of 1850
throws additional protection around the
fugitive. 1t compels the master to fur
nish satisfactory proof of his Identity
1t not only requires him to establish the
fact that he lost slave-that the slave
owed him service or labor which was due
but also to prove that the apprehended
fugitive is the identical slave that escaped
from him, and it is not until this further
proof is satisfactorily established that he
can reclaim and take him back.


Thus, while the law of 1850 throws a
protecting agis around the free colored
citizen, which the former did not. it at
the same time levies an additional bur-
then of proof upon the stakeholder, yet
still guaranteeing to him his rights under
the constitution. And now, the question
of to-day is, Shall we in Ohio GGHinue
to respect those rights; and manifest that
respect by voting for the present bill, OF
some other ofsimiar import that propos-
es honestly to protect them? Were We
living in different age, or surrounded
by different class of citizens, I do not