liiiljiii ..0' :r„ *-./ «>"•• "^. ^^ THE NEW FUGITIVE SLAYE LAW. SPEECH EDWIN C. LAPtNED, ESQ AT THE CITY HALL IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ON THE EVENING OF OCT. 2.5i!ji, 1 S50. IN REPLY TO ON. S. A. DOUGLAS, CHICAGO : 'PRINTED AT THE DEMOCRAT OFFICE, 45 LA SALLE STREET. Steain Presses. 1850, £^^f Chicago, Xov. 2S, 1850. •»D*f Edwin C. Larsed, Esq.— Sir: The undersigned, for ihemselves and a large number of otiier persons who have expressed a like desire, respectfully request thai you would oblige us by writing out for publication in a pamphlet form the substance of your speech delivered on the 25th inst. in answer to Senator Douglas. We are, Sir, very respectfully, Your ob't serv'ts, James H. Collins, Charles V. Dyer, Sylvester Ularsh, Thomas Richmond, E.S.Williams, Orrnigton Lunt, Henry W. Clarke, I.N.Arnold, Samuel C. Clarke, Carlos Haven, Wm. Jones, J. S. King, Jr. George A. Ingalls, George Manierre, A. G. Throop, Paul Cornell. CuicAoo, Oct. 29, 1850. Alessrs. Charles V. Dyer, Thomas Richmond, Orringtox Lunt, I. N. Arnold, J. U. Collins, Sylvester Marsh, and others — Gentlemen: Vour favor of the 2Sth inst., requesting, in behalf of yourselves and a large number of otlier persons, who have expressed a like desire, that I should WTite out for publication in a pamphlet form, the speech deUvered by me on the evening of the 25tli inst., in answer to Senator Douglas, has been received. In reply, I would state that I have already, at the request of the Editors of several of the leading papers, written out the speech for publication, and it is entirely at your disposal to make such use of it as you think proper. In WTiting it out I have not felt at liberty to make any improvements, and must therefore, solicit indulgence for tliose errors of tau- tology and repetition, to wliich extemporaneous speaking is always liable, and especially in unpractised speakers. I would beg leave to suggest that the proposed pamphlet should contain all the speeches which were delivered on the same occasion, together with tlie pointed, terse and admirably drawn resolutions reported by the Committee, and adopted by the meeting. The influence of the extensive circulation of such a pamphlet would, 1 feel confident, have a beneficial effect in in- ducing in the minds of our fellow citizens a more thoughtful consideration of the true character of the new Fugitive Slave Bill, and if anything which 1 may have said upon the subject shall be instrumental in furthering the repeal of tint infamous law, I shall feel most happy. In conclusion, I would express my grateful acknowledgment of tlie personal compliment implied to your request, and remain, with great respect. Very truly yours, EDWIN' C. LARNED. j out the provision of the constitution respecting fugitives Irom la- bor, 1 shall feel it to be mv duly, however much 1 deplore the e.xistence cf human slavery in our midst, to give to such a law my unequivocal sanction and suppoit. I am not then contending against the consti- tution, but against tins lnw, and 1 will undertake to prove to you that this law is not only not the same thing with the constitution, but that it is in gross and flagrant violation of some of the most important and vital constitutional principles and constitutional rights; and if I do so, then 1 shall vindicate the right and propriety of liie re- solution whicii 1 have announced to you not to aid or sanction its enforcement. Wow, what is ;he provision iu the constitution upon which this law professes to be based ? li is this. Constitution U. S., art. 4. s?c. 2 H 3. ♦•r^o person held to service or labor in ono "Stale under the laws thereof, escaping into "another shall, in consequence of any law or "regulation therein, be di.'charged from such "service or labor; but shall be delivered up on "claim of tlie party to whom such service or la- "bor shall be due." .\o.v what was the meanins: and intent of this clause ? What is the compact which our fathers have entered into and by which we are bound ? Why, at the time of the formation of this Con- stitution, the common law of England prevailed all over this country. It was the comnimi law of every State which entered into the Union. Its modes of procedure, its forms and writs and processes, its rules of ina! and of evidence were known a;jd established Cy the ])rinciples of the common law a slave cannot breathe tile air of freedom without be- coming a freeman. It was decided in England a century ago that .«o .=oon as a slave set his font upon the free soil of England he became free. ^o\v, then, had not tiiis clause been placed in the Constitution, what would have been the re- sult ? Why, the moment a slave entertd into a fiee Stale he would have become a free man. But the constitution was a compromise of con- flicting interests, and as one of these compromi- ses .t was agreed that the right iu sUve property should not thus be destroyed. It was permitted to the slaveholder to set up in the courts of a free State title in human beings — a right which, without such express enactment, he never could liave had. He was permitted to establish on a f.efc soil. and amongst free men, the ownership of a hu- man being, and upon so doing he was empow- ered to take away such human being as his own. Thai was the right which tlie constitution se- cured to him — that was the compromise into which our fathers entered. But does the cousli- lulion pro\ide how such right of property in man should be proved and established ? Does it authorize any new and extraordinary tribunals for the purpose ? Does it establish any new laws of evidence — any new mode of trial ? JVo. not at all. What then is the presumption ? — How are we to suppose that il was intended that this right of property thus secured should be established ? Was it not in the same manner that other rights of properly were tried and established? that, is, according to the course of the common law? Now, what were some of the rules and modes of procedure recognized by the common lasi' ? Amon2:t!ie chief of ihem vere the Trial by J ury- the right of Habeas Corpus — the privilege to the accused of being confronted with the witnesses whose tesliinony was to alFcct his life, liberty, or property, and of subjecting Ihem lo the ordeal of cross e.\aminalio.T or imi)eachment. At the time of the formation of the constitution, sla- very existnd to a greater or less e.xtent in every Slate in the Union e.>icei)ting the Slate of Mas- sachusetts, and the writ of "de homine replegi- ando" was in general use. This writ is one which, by a barbarous technical term, desig- nates a process, siniilar, in many respects, to our common action of replevin, the latter writ being confined to the re-caplion of property in human chattels and the' former being used in suits respecting the right of property in a humen being. Now, what sort of proceedings were had under this writ ? 'J'lie pre ceeding.s were all ac- cording lo the course of the common law The trial was by jury. Jl was in open court before the regularly constituted tribunals, the evidence was ofi'ered as in oti:er ca>es and subject to the same rule of cross examination and exclusion. Fellow citizens, the clause in Ihe constitution respecting fugitives from labor received t.ie unanimous vote of the Convention who framed it Now, dt you believe — is there a man of you who believes that by this clause it was intended to do away with all the ))rinciples and modes of proceediDg provided for the trial of contested questions of property and rig-ht by the common law ? Do you believe that w niie our forefathers were so jt-aious upon this great r'ght of trial by jury that they secured it by an express provision ■ in one of the arnendmeuts to the constitution, | and established that in suits where l!ie value in controversy exceeded twenty dollars, it should not be taken away, that they intended to leave the precious rioht of human liberty at the mercy of Star Chamber courts, of extraordinary and irresponsible tribunals — to rest it upon the ex ])arte affidavits of interested claiinunts ? — Did they mean, in behalf of this institution of human slavery, repugnant as it vias to all the better principles and convictions of the human heart. to overthrow all the long established rules of procedure — laws of evidence and modes of trial, which the wisdom of ages had founded for the serurity of the rights of Ireemen ? Da you believe that while they would not per- mit a cit zen of a Southern Stae to take from a citizen ol Itie JNorih a cotton bale, or a hogsliead of sugar — or the most tiilling or insignificant article of property, vvitliout establishing his rigiit of firoperty thereto by legal evidence, and in conformity with the rules of the common law — th.at they intended to cermit him lo seize human beings themselves, living as freemen in a free Slate, and without such a trial, to jierniit him to carry them away into hopeless bondage ? Do you believe that the men of those days, fresh from the battle-fields of the Pievolution — fired with noble ardor in that sacred cause of human liberty for which they had sacrificed their for- tunes and shed their blocid — would have entered into such a covenant as that ? No, gentlemen ; if such a construction had been given to that clause in the Constitution at that tune, it never could have secured the vote of a corporal's guard ia its favor in any of the Northern States. The compact which our fathers made, then, and lo v.'hich we are held, was this — that they w ould pass no law discharging the slave from his servitude — that they v.ould recognize, even in a free State, the right of prop' r y in human beings — and that wiien upon the "'claim" of the master, such right had been made out by competent evidence in a legal manner and after a legal trial, the slave should be delivered up lo his master. That was the compact, and by it I am ready to stand. Let a law be passed wliich secures to the individual against whom the cla'm of slavery is set up the benefits of the writ of Habeas Corpus and of the trial, hy jury, before competent and legal tribunals, in the usu- al manner, and it will receive my support, and I have no doubt would find very litile opposition among moderate and fair men in all parties. But, says the Senator, the right of trial by jiiry is not taken away by tiiis act. Did he mean to avoid the question by falling back on the law of 1793, and to argue that this law did not take it away because it had been previously abolished by that law? 1 will consider that objection and that law presently. But he gave another reason v;liy the present law did not take away the right of trial hy jury— and what was that ? — ' because there icas not one icord in the law in respect to the right of trial hy jury." Not a w'ord said about it — and there- to] e it does not take it away ! AVhy, gentlemen, that is a most extraordinary argument — why that is the very reason why it does take it away — it takes it ai\-ay, because it does not give it— be- cause it provides another and a different mod-i of trial, which trial is to be in a summary man- ner — and a summaiy trial is not a jury trial "Not one word said in the act about trial by ju- ry." No, gentlemen, it is true that there is nut one word in the act about i; — not one word — wouhi to God there had been ! If i remeinber rightly one Daniel Webster, who is not suspec- ted of late years of being over zealous in behalf of our colored brethern, did, (after r'x-eiving some hints from the Old Bay Stale,) introduce a bill into the Senate of the United States res- pecting fugitive slaves ; and in thai bill the trial by jury upon the question of slave or freeman was expret-sly secured to the individual against whom the claim of slyvery was set up That gentleman, was supposed to be somewhat fami- liar with the constitution iind constitutional law ; but it Seems he was very much mistaken about this matter, and that according to the Hon Senator's construciion all that is needed to give such right of trial by jury was to '■'hacc said not one word uhotit it in the act /" Jiut the Senator says the right to a trial by ju- ry is given, by the Constitution, and cannot bt* taken away by implication, and therefore there is a trial by jury given under this act. *And what do you think this right of trial by jury is ? Why, it is the right to try the question of identi- ty. A jury may be summoned and sworn to tiy, what? Why, whether Tom Jones is Tom Jones. (I use the same name by which the Senator saw lit to designate the accused.) Invaluable privi- lege ! Inestimable right ! What a blessed boon to freedoni is this I Is that the point which is to be tried ? — is that the question of magnitude in this controversy? It is not whether Ton! Jones is Tom Jones, but v.'hether Tom Jones is a slave — which we care about. That is the point, is it not ? \V'e!l, ho»v is that to be proved ? any trial by jury to prove that ? It is not a question of Tom Jones, or Bill Jones — it is a question of freedom or sla- very which we wish tried. We claim that a man living in a free State, and whom the law presumes to be free, shall not be deprived of his liberty uutil the fact of his slavery is estab! shed bv a jury of his peers, under laws of the land. VVeli, how is that main, that vital, that all-im- portant point — the point of liberty or slavery of the man, sought to be claimed under this law as a slave — how is that point to be established ? it is, by exparie testimony, made in the absence of the accused, without notice to him, when he is perhaps thousands of miles away, and in utter ignorance of the whole proceedings — entered of record in a Southern coirt, in a land of slave- holdeis, and when so entered, made conclusivs — coNCLUsiVK — of tlie luct of slavery. The slaveholder or slavecatcher comes into the State of Illinois — he has his record in his pocket describing Tom Jones. The process is issued. Tom is dragged before AJr. Gommis See Appendix, note (.2.) 6 sioaer Meeker, or Fome other commissioner — the affidavits are prepared : but Tom shall not be deprived of the inestimable right of 'rial by jury. Oh no ! — that sacred riijiu shall be se- cured to him — summon in your jury, then, and let them try — what ? Why, whether Te- doin ? — can he allow him to show that he .s not a slavr!, but a freeman 1 Sot a bit of it. The Commissioner is not allowed lo look into the question of his freedom or slavery. That point was decided before even Tom was arrested — be- fore any complaint was entered, any proceed- i.igs commenced against him — and what is the extent of the Commissioner's [^ower ? it is fim- ply this and no more, to determine whether Tom Jones is Tom Jones, and that is the only, the sole point upon which he can receive auv testi- mony. The question of identity is the only question for him to try : Is not this so ? Do I state the n>atter unfairly ? Do 1 misrepiesent or misstate the provisions of the bill ? If there is any meaning in words — if there is any power in language, what I have said is strictly and liter- ally rue. And in order that there may be no room for contradiction, no possibility of mistake, I will read to you the lOlh section of the act. It is as follows : '•Sec. 10. And be it further enacted. That when any person held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the District of Colum.- bia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their agent or attorney may apply to any court of record therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to such court or judge in vacation, of the escape afiresaid, and ihat the person escaping owed service or labor to such pirtv — whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the matter as proved, and also a description of the persons escaping with such con- venient certainty as may be: and a transcript of Buch record authenticated by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the said court being produced in any other State, 'Territory or District in which the person so escaping may be found, and being ex- hibited to any judge, commissinner or other (>ji- ccr authorized by the laic of the United States to cause persons escaping from service or labor to be delicered vp shall be held and taken to be full and conclusice evidence of tlie fact of escape, and that the serrice or labor of tlie person escipi'ig is due to the parly in suci record vicntiontd. And upon the produc- tion by the said party of other and further evi- deice, if necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in addition to wh.it is contained in the said record of llie identity of the person escaping, he or she shall be delivered up to the claimaut. And the said court, commissioner, ju:i of our fathers, he tells you, never designed that any man >hould be deprived of this iocsiimabie wiit. And what do you think he says can be done after the writ has been issued and return- ed ? Why, Judge Spring can have the exquisite, mspeakab'e happiness and satisfaction of gazing at the signature of Mr. George Wortiiington Meeker, or any other Commissioner's sigrian;re which is subscribed to the cerliticate, of look- ing at ihe bit of sealing wax by him attatcheil thereto, and of seeing if such Commissioner has set forth in du? form and proper legal phraseolo- try the proceedings before him. Jfso, ihfre ia tlie end of the matter — that is the v, hole author- ity of the Judge in the premises, even upon iVlr. Douglas' construction. Well, truly that is a most valuable, a n)osl inestimable privilege. Is this all that the great writ ot Habeas Corpus amounts to ? Was it for such a miserable tech- i.icahty as this that our fathers for lo'igages have contended ? Did they mean that the writ should See Appendix, note (0) . 10 only s'ive the power ioUokaL the seal and signa- pure of a star chamber court ' What sort ol se- curity ("or persooal liherty does such a process as this atf'jrd ? It is a mockery to talk about this beiiiij a priilege of Habeis Corpus We are couundiiijj fur a substance, not a shadow. The geiiileiiiau's writ of Habeas Corpus "keeps the word of promise to llie ear, and breaks it to the hope." It does not enable the person char^^ed as a fugitive to obtain anv rehearing or eiamiiifition of the queslion of his right to J i cc- doin. Mv instnuting a tribunal or_/i/t«Z anrf cx- clvsire j ■risdiction where ihe fact ol slaverv is estal)lisiie(i by ex parte trslimo;:y, this act etiec- lually robs the the accused of all the ttnr^ts of the writ, even if, as contended by the gentle- man, it tyrants liim \tsfonn. To illtislrate more fully my meaning and the dilVerrnce bjtvveen the writ of Habeas Corpus which the gentleman c^^uiends for and that v/hich I demand for every man living in a land of freedom, let us take a case. h lias been often decided not only in the State but in the United Stales courts that if a master shall voluntarily bring his slave into a tree State that the slave thereby be. omes free. Such a case is not within the sense of tho con- stitution 'an er;cape,' and therefore is not saved by the consiilution, and falls within the princi- ple of the commou law. Now, suppose a mas- ter in ignorance of this law or Irustinjr in his at- tachment and fidelity, has voluntarily brought Tom Jones (for let us keep up the family name which the Hon. Senator introduced) into a free Stale, and there Tom takes his leave and refu- ses to return. Tom has now become a freeman and i« entitled to all the privileges and secuiities which the law gives to freemen — he is just as much a freeman as I pm or any of yon are. IS'ovv, suppose Tom's former master to appear in the southern court and make the affidavit and proof required that Tom was his slave, giv'ng his description in full, so that it cannot be mis- taken, it is Tom and it is no' any body else — the neighborhood wo'ild all know that he did have such a slave as Tom : the testimony coulii all be given in perfect fairness and g( od failh, even by a conscientious man — for you know well enougli that there is not a southern man who would not believe that any such decisions as those I have referred to were perfectly absurd, and a mere outrage upon southern rights. — Tom's identity and the fact of his escape would therefore be proved under the law, of record by sufficient testimony. The claim is now ready for trial, the slave o«ner comes to the free Slate and procures Tom's arre.st, his identity is j erfectly evident, and the Commissioner of course is bound by the record and delivers him over into the custtdy of his master, as his slave. Now, suppose Tom Jones sues out his writ of Habeas Corpus, and in his petition sets forth the facts which 1 have stated, that he was volunta- rily brought into a free State by his master, and theief. re— although he is the identical Tom Jones described in the proceedings — he is by law a freeman. 1 ask you if, under the provi- sions of this law, even umier the honorable Su-n- ator's con^lruction, the Judge could look into the fact thus set up ? No, he could pay no altantiou to it. He could look only at the form of the papers. The fact of freedom or slavery, the great ipieslion involved in the conlro/ersv, he could not look into or disturb. Tliat has been decided bv a tribunal of final and conclusive ju- risd ction. and any investigalion of the merits is utterly beyond the purview of his authoritv, and there is no remed\. Tom must go back into slavery.* If this be so, then under the ordinary, every d-iy iiperalion of this la'v, free citizens of tree States, as much entitled to the privileges of free- men, as any one of us, may be deprived of all the guaranties and safeguards, which the com- mon law has established, as the great bulwarks of liberty, and without a trial and upon e.\ parte testimony, may be consigned to ihe terrible doom of hopeless, life-long bondage. If this is true, wi I you tell me that such a law can be constitutional 7 Will any man, with a free heart in his bosom, tell me that a law which can, un- der its ordinary and usual operation, make slaves of freemen, is in conformity with that constitution which was framed by patriots for tile government of a tree peofile? Hut, savs Mr. Douglas, this law is no worse than the law of 1793 — it is substant ally the same law as that and you have made no com- plaint about that law. He tells yon that this is a belter law than the law of 17!)3. W'Uv, gentle- men, when the Hon Senator was upon this part of the argument 1 began to doubt if I should not have to go home and thank (lod for the great blessing vouchsafed to us in this new Fugitive Slave Law ! The Senator gravely sought to make you believe that the new law is a great improvement upon the old one and morefatora- blti to justice and freedom. He says it is a great deal better law lor the slave himself. The old law, he says, permitted the maste.-- to seize his slave by the nape ol the neck and drag him from one end of the State to the other without any process, and this being rather too outrageous a mode of proceeding even for a slave. Congress beneficently provided this new law which con- tains better securities for the rights of tlie slave and iirevents his being taken except according to the forms of law. Well, now, it is a little extraordinary that for sixty years th's law of 1793 has been in force and our colored brethren have all the '.ime been pursuing their rrspeciive vocations in tranquility and contentment, without an.xiety or alarm, and ye no sooner is this new law passed and pro- mulgated than yon see one universal scattering among them. From all pans of the country Ihiy areflving as fast as wind and steam can carry them — one rushing mulliluJe onward toward the North — the railroad car and steamboat are loaded witu them — they line by thousands the shores of Canada — the British birracks are filled with terror stricken crowds — homes once the abodes of peace and plentv, are deserted — prop- erty is abandoned as an idle and worthless gift — families are broken np — households are parted wide asunder-and with hot baste and wild terror they are seeking the bleak and barren wilds of Canada — with Ihe rigors of a norlhern winter staring them in the face — and the risk of want, and sufTering, and starvation impending over their heads. Why, what is the matter with *See .Appendix, Note (7.) 11 you ? What are vou runnings away for ? What are you g;oing to Canada for ? Don't you know that >' eiiator Uous;las has {;ot a new and im- proved Fugitive Slave 1-aw [)assed whicli is ex- pressly for your henefit ; don't you know that the new bill secures your rights a {jreat deal better than the old ! Oh, what a bitter rnockeiy is such an argument as this upon the terrible misery and woe which have fallen upon that un- happy race I And again, what means all tliis tremendous excitement ? For sixty years the country has re- mained in a state of quiet and composure with reference to the cxistiiigr laA on the subject of fugitive slaves, and all of a sudden the whole country is in a blase. Behold, in the city of Detroit, seven companies of soldier-: and, among the rest, the military force of the United States, marched out .n all the paraphernalia of militarv display — banneis fl\ing and drums beating, all to guard one poor nesro ! From East to West there has sprung p from the heart ol the mas- ses one indignant burst of feeling. From i Id Faneuil Hall, the cradle of our liberties, wiiere but a short time since the free citizens of ihe old Pay State ga'here ■ themselves together, to the shores of Lake Michigan, it is all excitement upon the subject of this new Fugitive Slave Law. Now did vou ever see such a stupid peo- ple — such a nation of fools snd blockheads ? Do they not see — can they not understand that this is Senator Douglas' improved Slai^e bill — that it is a great deal better than the old one — thai it contains no provisions different from the old law, and lias got new sei;urities for ju.stice and freedom, designed esjicciallij for the bcnrjit of fu- gitive slaves I And then, fellow citizem?, to think of the magnanimity and philanthropy of our South- ern brethren ! Here the whole of the last session of Congress a period of some ten months, they have been loudly clamoring for a new Fu- gitive Slave Law, speech after speech has been made, and that has been ever the I ivrden of the song ; and what do you think f.'icy wonitd it for ? Why because Ihe old law was defective. It did not provide sufficient securities for the poi r fugi- tives. They were liable to be seized under it witii- out process. Our Southern brelhern could not stand this, it was uio much for tbcir tender sen- sibilities — the fugitive must have better protec- tion than this — and so they got up a new law and tvcrij man of them vot.d in its favor — and the result is this New and Improved Fugitive Slave Bill, c ontrived and designed especially for the better proteciion of the righis of alleged fu- gitives from labor ! Why, v^'e made nu com- plaint of the old law — the Senator i inif^elf ad- mits that we were satisfied — we asked fur no improvements. But nothing will satisfy the troubled minds of our Southern brethren — they cannot leave the poor slaves in such a defence- less condition and they must give us another bill AND THIS IS THK BILL ! Was there ever anything more ridiculous than such a pretence as (his ? Mr. Douolas asks why we have made no ex- citement about the law of 1793, which was the same thing in sut stance as the present law i will show you in a moment that there is a wide ditFerence between the law of 1793 and tiis law, and that, although that was bad enough, this is infinitely, unspeakably worse. But I will tell vou why the law of 1793 made litMe or no ex- c'.tement Mr Douglas himt-elf gave you the reason for it, only il was in another porion of his argument. It was because the law of 1793 was practically innpeialive — il amounted to nothing — it became, uliriost from its passage, lo all intents and for all praciical rur])oses, a dead letter. The northern people are too shrewd to tight about words, they leave the war about abstractions lo their brethren of Virginia. They were content th^it the law did no harm. Mr. Josiah Quincy, one of the oldest and most eminent lawyers of Massacbu.-etis, states that the law of 1793 was odious in the estiina- lion ot the people of Massachusetts, but that they cared very litth, for its passage, because thev saw it never cnulJ be enforced. It impos- ed its duties upon State magistrates and oHicers, and they knew that thev would never carry them out in any oppressive or u' just manner, and they never did. He states thai for fiity-si.K years since the law has been in force, there has iioi been a solitary slave delivered up und r it, and he did not believe there ever would or could be. He gives a very amusing account of the first attempt to arrest a s'ave which was made under the law of 1793. He states tbnt the pro- cess was issued by a Justice ot the Feace, that he was retained as counsel lor the alleg'd slave — that he prepared bis brief, and went down loaded wi'h all the necessary authorities. He found a great crowd of people assemtiled, aud that while he was in the midst of his argument, ho heard a noise, and on turning round he saw the constables lying spra ling on the floor, and a passage opened through the croud, through which the fugitive was taking his departure without stopping to hear the opinion of the Court, and that was the last of that case, and that was the last of the law of 1793 in Massachusetts. That, then, was the reason why the law of 1793 produced no excitement, even bef re the Supreme Court decided it to be uncou.-tilnlional; because it was not and could not be enforced to eny considerable extent — because its duties were imposed upon State ofiicers, some of whom would not execute them at all, and those who did gave to the allevr tn the exatiiiiiinjr tnaj;istraie tlie puwf.r to go intii the icliolc case — the fact of sla- very and iif escipe were to he made out by com petent and sufliiMent te-timony. aid oflts sutS- c;eii''v he was permitted to be the judije 'i'el! me, then that there is no ditierence be- tween this law and the hisv oi 17!)3 I The law of 1793 was bad enough, God knows, but even that stop[)ed short of this — even that prov ded an opportunity for a trial and a hearing of some kind. That did noi condemn a man who was pursuing his daily toils in a land of freedom, in Utter uiicon5ciousness of the black doom which was imp-nding over his head to have his free- dorn svvorn away without notice, and without a liraring, and himself consigned to all the horrors of liofielcss slavery. Is it not so ? Do I misrepresent the matter ? I clialle.ige conlradiction. I defy any man to show that such is not the true and necessary construction of this law. Mr. I^ee here arose and asked if proof of iden- tity could not be introduced before the Commis- si', ner. and in this manner the person arrested could show he was not the same person Mr. Larned — I have slated so again and again. //"/(« is not the person described, he can bhow thai he is not the peison — but is the slave catcher going to d-i his business so stupidly, to make such a fool of himself as to have tiie pro- cess of arrest issued against the wrong m.m ? IJut admit that he is the same person, and yet iTiiirtlains that he is not a slave but a freeman, or t!;ai he his been manumitted, that he, the veritahle individual descrih.d in and set forth in Ihe record is entitled to all the rights of a free citizen ; what are von goiog to do then ? is not the record cnnclaslcc upon tiiis point ? Can you go behind it— can you qu stion it — and i< not then the main a id all important point prejudged and decided without a hearing 7 Mr. Lee aiiain arose and said he should like to have the speaker give the name of any Judge of any northern court who would give such a construction to the act as to make the record conclusive ofthe question of slavery and esrape Mr Larned — ike gen'leman desires of me that I shall give the iiime of any Judge of a Ncrihern Court who would put such a construc- tion Uficn this section of the act as to make the record conclusive of the fact of slavery, lean- not of course give him the name of any such Judge, because the bill is just passed, an I no cases have been decided under it; moreover 1 am un- able lo sav whether there is any Judge of a Northern Court base enough to lend his aid in any way in carrying out so infamous a law ; but lean tell hi'ii what construction such a Judge xcoiild be ohli'^cd to gire under his oalh of office if be gave any, and that is the very construction vhich 1 have (-hown, because the law requires icii a construction, and ia the most express and explicit terms, and therefore he could not avoid i;ivmg it. Why. what are the words used — iiiey are "ii ihull be ronchisice" What does conclusive mean 7 Why. it means conclusive, don't it ? — final, that which is not to be ques- tioned or examined into or controverted. Mr. Dutch rose and staleii that he thought the spe;iker misconeeived the objection as to proof which could be otlVred on the question of identity. Could the accused not show that he was not the m^m described in the record ? Mr. J^arned — I had admitted this so often that I su|ipo>ed it fully understood. Uorioubt' edly if the slaveholder had gone into Ihn South- ern Court and made his proo'' that Tom Jones WHS his slave and had e>ca()ed. and described him in full as a mau six feet and a quarter of aa inch high, with one eye a little squint, and nose somewhat awry, an) a limp in the led Ifg. there is no doubt that under such an atlidavit they could not arre.-t Mr. Dutch ; and if they did, he V ould be permitted to go on aud show that he did not auswer the description J\o, gentlemen, 1 tell you I am right in this matter. i speaii the truth — I do not misrepre- sent this bill in the slightest particular. It is as I have stated, and it cannot be shown otherwise. 1 repeat, then, that under this law t' e doom of shivery may be pronouced upon a citizen liv- ing in a free State, in his absence aud without notice, and without a hearing. But, sa}s the ho .orable Senator, we are not to suj'pose that our Southern brcihern would so dishonor them- selves as to be guilty of false sweaing. Oh no ! we are not to believe that the chivalry cau do a thing of this kind. They are so far above and beyond even doubt or sus|)icion, that you may trust them to ssvear through their own ca- ses without a fear ! I had supposed that false swearing was a matter of every aay's experence in courts of justice. 1 had supposed that the temptation lo false swearing was so great, where a man's own interests depended upon the event of the suit, that the common law had for ages refused to permit a partv to testify at nil in his 0wncai/se. A'e the influences of slavery so ele- vating — does the holding of human beings in bondyge exercise such an ennobling aud pu- rifyinL'' power over the character, as to ex dt our Southern brethern to such a height of immacu- late and incorruptible inte^rily, that their evi- dence shall not only be reciicid in 'h>*ir own case, hut that that evidence shall be cuncbisice to decide the case in their oicn furor f 1 would confide great rights and great inter- ests to no man's honesty — to no man's word — to no man's oalh, whether he lives north or south, wlien 1 have a right to demand that which is a better dependence than any man's honor, honesty or oath, and that is the rights and privileges — the safeguards and securities founded in Ihe wisdom of the common law, and belonging lo me and lo you and to all of us as the free citizens of a free State. We are all freemen — every one of us — every man within the sound of my voice, be his skin white or black — aye, even if he be a fug'tive slav**, just es- caped from the land of bondage, and there may be such before me — I say, in the eye of the law he is a freeman, entitled to all the rights and privileges of a freeman, until the fact of his slav- ery is legal')' established. APPENDIX. Nole (1) The fullawing is a copy of the law of South Car>lina, under which the itn[iri#oii- ment of free colored citizens, mentioned in the uro-iiinent, has been made. "A;id be il further enacted by tlie authority aforesaid, That if any vessel shall couie into any port or harbor of this State from any other State or foreign port, havinij on board any free negroes or persons uf color a-; cooks, stewards or mariners, or in any other employment on board ofsuid ves- sels, sucli FREE negrroes, or (>ersons of color, shall be liiibte to be seized and confined in jail until said vessels shall clear out and depart from this Stale; and that when said ves.-el is ready to sail, the Captain of said vessel shall be bound to carry awav the said free negroes, or persons of color, and pay the expense of iheir detention, and in case ol his iiealect or refusal so to do, shall be liable to be indicted, and on conv'Ction thereof, shall be fined in a sum not less than one thousand dol- lars and imprisoned not less than two months, and such free kegroes or persons of color SHALL BE DELI-.IED AND TAKEN AS ABSOLUTE SLAVES, AND SOLD, in conformity to the provisions of the act passed on 20th December, 1820, aforesaid." This law has been repeatedly declared uncon- stitutional. Judge Johnson, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United Stales, and a native of South Carolina, said of it "that in re- gard to its unconstitutionality, it is not too much to say iticiU not bear an argument " (See Niles' Register Sept., lH-33. Mr. Wirt, when Attorney General of the Uni- ted States, also pronounced it unconstitutional. Jt was lor the purpose of instituting legal i)ro- ceedings to bring this law before the Supremo Court of theUnited States, that Mr. Hoar, an emi- nent citizen of Massachusetts, wassent in the year 1344 to the City of Charleston On his arrval there he conuDunicated the object of his mission in respectful terms to the Governor of the Stale, and in a lew days thereafter was driven, under threats of violence, from the State. That law still remains in full force in the Stale of South Carolina, and not only so, but on the lOlh Dec. 1844, the Legislature of that Slate passed a further law, depriving the persons ar- rested, imprisoned and sold, under the act above set forth, of any right of Habeas Corpus. So that the legality of the imprisonment cannot be brought in question before any Court, Slate or Federal. And the State has further provided that any person, who either on his own behalf, or acting under the authority of any Slate com- mission, shall come into that State with intent to disturb or hinder the operation of said laws, hall be subject lo fine and imprisonment. Under this law there have been frequent in' stances of free colored citizens being sold into sla- very- Note. (2). In the Senate, June 3. 1850, Mr. Webster introduced a Fugitive Slave Bill, which, with the remarks made by him at the time, will be found below: It will be seen that this bill not only provides for ilte trial bi/ Jury of &\\ the questions involved, including theVact of slavery and e-capp, but con- tains no provision making an exparie record evi- dence at all, much less conclusive evidence, upon the facts of slavery and escape. Mr. Webster. Mr. President, at an early pe- riod of the session, 1 turned my alteniion to the subject of preparing a bill respecting the reclaim- ing of fugitive slaves, or of preparing certaia amendments to the existing law on that subject. In pursuance of this purpose. I conferred with some of the most eminent members of the pro- fession, and especially with a iii^h judicial au- thority, who has had more (o do vviih questions of '.his kind, 1 presume, than any other judge in the United States. After these consultations and conferences, as early as in februarv, 1 prepared a bill amendatory of ihe act of 1793, intending when a proper time came, to lay i; before the Senate for its considerati 'n. I now wish to pre- sent the bill to the Senate unaltered and precise- ly as il was when prepared in February last. Mr. Datton. I hope that the paper will be printed. The bill was then laid on thel&ble and ordered to be printed as follows: A Bill amendatory of "An act respecting fugi- lives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved Febru- ary 12, 1793. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- resenl'itivcs of the United S al::s of America in Congress assembled. That the provisions of the said act shall e.xtend to the Territories of the United States; and thfit the commissioners who now are, or who may hereafter be appointed by the Circuit Courtsof the United States, or the District Courts where Circuit Courts are not established, or by the Territorial courts of the United States, all of which courts are authorized and required to appoint one or more commissioners in each coun- ty to take acknowledgment of bail and affidavits, and also to take depositions of v^ilnesses in civil causes, and who shall each, or any judge of the United States on complaint being -made on oaih to him that a fugitive from labor is believed to be within the State or Territory in which he lives, issue his warrant to the marshal of the United States, or to any other person who shall bo will- 13 We will stand by the constitution, we v^ill abide by all its coinpronii&es — we will he true to the compact which our fathers made -every word — everv letter of it. We will jjive lo our Southern brethren the same opporiiiiiities— the ! same jirivilf jres — the same mode of proceeding to enforf-e th^ir riijlits of |)ro[)erly in their slavt-s which we ouToelves enjoy in the prosecution of our own rights of property ; but s-halj we dii more? are we called on to do more? VVIiv should we be asked lo g've to this institution of human slaverv 7ycr)(//c;r privilejier' ? Why should we ex- lend to the prosecution ol claims of property in human beings — a kir.d of ( ropertv po odious in the estimation of freemen — privileges which are given to no other species of pro(»erty ? No, fellow citizens, J would give what the constitution requires, but not one jot or tittle more. L^l a proper law be passed, securing to the alleged fugitive all the .-afeguardo and im- munities provided by the common law, and tor one 1 w li give it my conscientious and honest sanction and support. But let my right arm wither toils socket, when I shall lift it to give the slightest aid or countenance to a law hke this, which is in violation of the most sacred princi- ples of the constitution and the mo*t preciou;- rights of freemen. Isaac N. Arnold, Esq., in behalf of the Com- mittee on Resolutions introduced the following, which were adopted with great enthusiasm : 1. Resolved, That the Fugitive Slave Act, recenilv passed by Congres^^, is revolting to our moral sense, and an outrage upon our feelings of justice and humanity. It disregards all the se- curities wliii'h the Constitution and laws have thrown around personal liberty. Its direct ten- dency is lo alienate the people from th'-ir love and reverence for the Government and institu- tions of our country. 2. Resolved, That we respect and will ever uphold the Constitution of our country, and the laws pa.ssed in pursuance thereof. It was ordain ed to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty ; but this lawviolaies its letter and spiri.-j It takes away all the benefits of the writ of Habeas Corpus It withholds the Triaf. by Jury. It authorizes the deprivation of liberty with- out due process of law. It clothes inferior avd irr?sponsil)ie of!icei8 with the highept judicial powers. It gives a larsjer reward for a dpciaion in favor of slavery, than f< r one in favor of freedom. It gives no (ijipcid from the decision, however corru|it, ignorant, prejudiced, or infamous the officer may be. It sends men into perpetual slavery, on ex parte and summary proceedin2!=, and then fere without a (rial, and without atlordiiig the alleg- I d fugiiive any o[)porlunity to prove his freedom; lor tiiese and other olijections, we denounce the law as unconstitutional and void ; and in the name of lilierty, jusii^^e, and right, and in the namwofthe maiig'ed and violated cuns'iiuliou of our country, Wf d'^mai.d iis repeal. 3. Resolved, That we are called upon to con- demn this law, not only by the considerjiion of the claims of our sutlVring fellow men upon our sympathy and aid, but by a proper regard for our own personal ealVty, as this law is no respecter of persons or coiii|.|e.\ions, making no distinc- tion hetween whiles and blacks — bond and free — subjecting all alike — Anglo-yaxon and Afri- can, ail colors and degrees, to the hazard of being seized as fugitives froin labor, and remov- ed beyond the limits of this State to distant places without the means of 1-gal resistfince. 4. Resolved, That while such acts reniain up- on our statute book we will not tolunturily aid in its execution, but we will in every legal and constitutional way, seek to protect and se- cure the rights ami liberties of those who are [ sought to be made its victims. j 5. Resolved, That this enactment should not I only cover with re| roach its authors utid advo- j cales, but those also w ho connived at its pass- I age, concealing tliemselves on ihe fin.il vote lo escape the indignation of a constituency whose , dignitv and independence they have sacriliced I and wliose character they have blackened and disgraced. 6. Resolved, That we, as the friends of uni- versal liberty, are admonished of the necessity of renewed and conlitiuous agitation on the great subj ct of human slai'ery, while F'r1';e Spkixh and a I^kke Prk's are yet ours Let Ihe coun- try be rockfd as bv a tempe.'t, until the political Piiaraobs of this great land shall be constrained to "let the I'eople go " 15 in£j to serve it, authorizing an ariesl of the fugi- live, if witliin the Siaieor i'erritory, to be broujiht before him or some other cornniissioiier or judge of the Uiiiltd t^talet; court within the Slate or Territory, that liie rii^ht of the person claiming the service of such (utrilive may be examined. — And on tiie hearing, depositions duly authenti- cated, ami parol |)roof, shall be heard to establish the identity of the fugitive and the right of the claimant, and also to thow that shivery is estab- lished in the State fami which tiie fugitivi ab- sconded. And if on such hearing, the commis- sioner or judge shall find the claim to the servi- ces of the f'jgilive, ^s asserted, sustained by the evidence, he shall make out a certificate of the material facts proved and of his judgment there- on, which he sluill sign, and which shall be con- clusive of the riglit of the claimant or his agent to take the fugiii e biick to the Slate from whence he fled, l^ruiidcd, that if the lugitive shall deny that he owes service to the claiinant under the laws of the Slate where he was held, anii af;er being duly cantoned as to th'^ solemnities and consequences of an oalh. shall swear to the same, the commissioner or judge shall forlhwith sum- mon a jury of tv.'elve men to try the right of the claimani, who shall be sworn to try the cause ac- cording to evidence, and the commissioner or judge shall preside at the trial and determine the compete;. cv of the proof. Sec 2. And he it further enacted. That the commissioner shall receive ten dollars in each case tried by him, as aforesaid, the jurors fifty cents each, and the marshal or other person serv- ing the process shall receive five dollars forserv- ing the warrant on each fugitive, and for mileage and other services the same as are allowed to the marshal f;>r similar services, to be e.xamined and allowed by the comnlissioner or judge, and paid by the claimant. Note. 1 3). It .>-eems that the right of the Slave to a trial by jury was expressly refused by the Senate. We copy the following from the proceedings in theU. S. "Senate, Aug, 16, 1850: Mr. Diylon moved to amend the bill, by add- ing an amendment, heretofore offered by iWr. Webster, graming a jury trial to the slave: and the question being taken, it was rejected — Yeas, 11; JMays, 27. Yf.as — Messrs. Chase, Davis of Mass., Da\ton, Dodge of Wis., Greene, Hamlin, Phelps, Smith, Upham, Walker and Winthrop. Naijs — Messr-*. Atchison, Badger, J5arnwell, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Buller, Cass, Davis of Miss., Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Houston, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Norton, Pratt, Rush, Sebastian, Sonle, Sturgeon, 'I'urney, Un- derwood, Wales and Yulee. Note. (4). The portion of the argument upon the right of trial by jury in the Slave State, where the alleged service is due, formed no part of the speech as originally delivered. It was de- signed by the speaker to have consic'ered this point, but from want of time, he omitted so to do. and aflerwiirds published, with the report of the speech in the daily papers, the argument on these points, as here given in the form of a note, id inserts it here in the body of the speech to 'ierve the unity of t!te argument, •at the right of a trial by jury was given in t€ from whence the alleged Slave escaped, was one of the mnin points taken by Mr. Doug- las in defence of the law. Note. (5). The view taken in the ai-gument of llie true meaning and inlenlinn ol tlie proviso in the constitution respeiliiii; Fugitn'e Slaves, is consinant with and sustained by the language of ihe proviso. The language 's, "shall be de- livered up on claim of the paity to whom such service or labor may be due " "A claim (said Juilge Storv, in giving the opin- ion ol the court, the case of Prifg. ?i; Common- wealth of Plvania) in a just juridical sense, is a demand of some matter of right made by one per.son U|)on another, to do or lo forbear to do some act or thing as a matter of duty, " and adds tliat the riirht to a slave, being "aright of pro- perty capable of bei..g recognized and asserlod bv proceedings before a court of justice, between parlies adverse to each other, it constitutes in the strictest sense, a controrcrsy between the parties, arisingunder the Con.slitution of (heUnit- ed St^-.tes, within the express delegation of ju- dicial power given by that instrument." The question, then, of the right of tiie claim- ant to tlie person claimed, is in the language of the court in that case, "a controrcrsy hcticccn adverse parlies respecting a rig 'it of propirly." The C(institution expressly provides "that in all suits at common law, where the value iu contro- versy shall exceed twenty dollars, tiie right of trial by jury shall be preserved " It was decided by the Supreme Cour' of the United Stales, in case Palmer vs. Bedford, 3, Pet 447, that the expression, "suits at common law," inchtde i all controversies properly cognizable by the common law (in contra-distinction of tho.se of admiralty and equity jurisdiction) which would of course iiiclurie contioversies res|>ecting personal liberty. That a mat»'s liberty is worth more than $>20, it would hardly require an authority to prove, but if it did, we believe it has been expressly decided to be worth over #2,000, so as to come within the cases appealable to the Supreme Court of the United States. Note. (()). The point referredto was one taken and argued with great force, by James H. Col- lins, Esq., based upon tlie construction of the language of the 6lh section of the A'-t. That section provides tiiat the certificate of the c.>m- missioiier shall be conclusive of the right lo re- move the person described in it, to the Slate or Territory from which he esnaped — '■'and shall prevent all molestation of said person by any PROCESS issued bv any court, judge, magistrate or other person." Mr. Co!lins contended that the word "process" is a word, in law, of extensive signification, that it embraces every species of writs — and that as the law forbids that any process should be issued for the molestation of the person hold- ing the alleged fugitive — that it must be con- s>rutd to include the writ of Habeas Corpus, which is "a process," and therefore to prevent the i-suing of that writ. The view taken by M.-. Collins is sustained by the following vote of the Senate on the bill: Mr. Winlhrop submitted an amendment, to the third section, to the effect that the award of the commissioners shall not stay or hinder a writ of habeas corpus, &.C. And this amendment, after debate by Messrs. -16 Wiiitlirnpj MaRon and Rerrl^n, was rejected — Yea,-, II: i\a\s, 2G— as follows: lcu5 — Messrs. (,'hasf, Dnisof MiiS'S, Davton, Dodi'e (if Wis , Greene, I'lielps, Siiiilli, Upliaiil, Wair-!', VViilker and Wiiiiliro(j. A'(i/,s — Ue'srs Alclii^oii, IJadgrer, Barinvell. Bell, Ui'iiton, Uerrien, liiillfT, Cass, Davis of Miss., DawFiiii, UodjTH of ioiva. Downs, tlous- t»n. King, Manjiuiii, Musoii, Norton, Prat'.Kusk, Sirlia.stiaii, Shiklus, Soule, Sturgeon, Tiirney, L'ndtTwood and Vulee. NoU. (7). Another case which might be cited is the case of a free colored cii.zeu, sold iiilo sla- very Under the provisions of llie law of South Carolina, set forth in Note, (I), a law w'ich is a gro.-,s vi.dation of the ConstituiioQ of the United Stales. Sa|i|io«r a (ret colored riiizen of Massachu- setts should, under that law, be sold ax a slave in t>outh C'arolina, and slionld afterivards make his escape into tills Slate, and should be arrested under this Fugitive thive law, could li-.- go be- hind I he record otl'ered by the person ciainiing hiin (or the purpose of proving the aliove facts. — 'I'ha'. record is in conformity with the laws of Soulli Carolina, and by that record the fact ol his .-lavery and escape, are conclusively esiab- lished. \Vh"re then is the alleged sl-ive to get the opportunity of showing that he h a Jycc c iizcn. illegallv and uuconstitulionally sold inio slavery? Not before ihe commissioner, for ihecommissiou- er is not allowed I > go behind the record. Not in the .Stale of South Carolina, where the alleged service is claimed to be due, for it is on the un- cons;iulional laws of tiiat slate, that the c'aiin to snch alleged slav} is bised, and these laws ■ e- iiy him the right of hal)eas corpus, to test the question of the consiitulionality, and punish, with nue and imprisonment, any person who thai! seek to test it in any other manner. The effect, therefore, ol the necessary operation of ihe Fugitive Slave law v.'ould, in fuch a case as this, be to deprive n frte cilizcn, ii.egally de- prived of his liberty, of any opportunity of estali- lishiiig it, and that the odious and unconstitution- al laws of South C\irnlina and other iSoulhern Slates, would not only be secured from all ques- tion, but would be rendered rntirely eflectual b\ the provisions of this new law, end free citizens of the North not only be sold into slavery at the south, but when ihey escaped from bondaije and reL'ained their homes and rights of freedom and cilizenship, be delivered b;.ck again to be sold as chattels by Eouihern slaveholders. Jf northern freemen can submit to such a law as this, the old Aiiglo Saxon blood must have ceased to course through their veins! Autc. (b). A 1 irge |iorlion of Mr. Dougl is' speech was devoted lo an attack upon the C'oiiiinoii Council of Chicago. That body liad, Bt their regular meeting a f. w cveningj previ- ous, passed a series of jesoliitions coudemu^ng the Fugitive Slave Law, as unconstitulional, un- juvt and oppressive, and expressing their detcr- miuation not lo lend their aid or countenance to the carrying out of that law, and instructing the police otlicers, appointed by them, ihatlhej need not centider it any part of their ofKcial duty to enforce s--ion in the Constitution respecting Fugitive Slaves, and that such officers were, therefore, under uo obli- ga!i 'U to perlorm such dnt'es. JN'ow, we suppose, neither the Common Coun- cil, nor the Senator, noranv other public oiiicers, in the honest disdiarge of their otiicial duties, are justly cliargeable with intentional violation of their allegiance to the Constitution. It is to be presumed, of course, that iheir errors, if any, are errors of judgment. But, il certainly would not seem lo be becom- ing in tile Senator lo bring this charge against the Cotnmon Council; for if either the Common Council or the Senator are justly liable to the im- putation of disloyally to the Constitution — which IS it, the Commcu Council who have simply de- clared their intention not to enforce, and instruc- ted their olficers not to enforce a law, which by Ihe decision of the Supreme Cuurl of the United Slates, neither they nor their officers are under any constitutional obligation to enforce, even if the law itself is constitutional, or the Senator who would have voted for a law, which, if Ihe positions which we have assumed are correct, is in violation of some oft he most preciousand sacred principles of that very couslitu'iou which be has sworn to support? 54 t • "*-0^ o^ * . . * . '^ * • M • . ^^ ^ * • • » a9 ..** -I^m %^^ .•^\ %/ .'^ 0^ ,l»^«„ ^* *''%. 'bv*' • •• ;* A-?-' r^^.. 7 • y\. ^