£
■4
\vv
AfclV
Am main
Bi JOHN B .BRATTON
YOL. 37. '
lllftgwwafiltanfa 2Leflfolat«i*.
OF MR. BONHAM,
Senate Bill JVo. 14, to repeal the Glh section of
the net to prevent kidnapping, preserve the public
' SfC. .
i Mr.BbNtuu moved lo airike oul all after the on
• Utollng-clatiso, and insert the following: ,
That the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh sec
toon* or tho act entitled “ An Act to prevent kidnap*
biq*i : p>e«ervo iho public peace, prohibit the exorcise
Sf JySSfl powora horotoforo exercised by judges,,
inaUwTof the peace, aldermen and jailors, in this
: &6!ttritt)Owoalth, and to repeal certain slave laws,
\’ t p%nieaihe 3d day of March, Anno Domini, one thou*
\*s«ft4lght hundred and forty-seven, be and the same
• 'Hrj&bereby repealed, and the provisions of the act of
' -i tiMthday of December, Anno Domini, one thousand
1 ! and oighly-nino, “to provide for the j
« ><jdislody of prisoners, committed under the authority!
V iho United Slates,” and the supplement (hereto
passed pit the 3d day of March, Anno Domini, one
thousand eight hundred and fourteen, are hereby
Extended to fugitives from labor.
Mr. Speaker *. Judging from the decisive vole
given for the bill pending in this House, on Us pas*
reage through the committee of the whole and on first
reading,which bill is very similar to the amendment
T now have the honor to propose, it can scarcely bo
necessary to occupy much lime in discussion, to ena
ble uf to come to an intelligent understanding of Ibe
Subject under consideration. I feel it a duly incum
bent on mo, however, lo express the sentiments of my
constituents on this subject, and also my own opin
■ J ,{bn as to the constitutionality of tho3d,4tli, and 6lh
vooiions, now proposed to bo repealed, uf the act of
Assembly of 3d March, 1847.
The repeal of the obnoxious sections referred to,
is not a, topic of ordinary legislation—it has some*
thing to do with iho stability of the government itself
measure required at our hands, and due from
, n't in good faith, os a grateful peace offering to our
Southern brethren—it, is a question of comity and
good/neighborshlp, as well as conslUulionobrighl—
it |« throwing away, oul of our sight, the apple of
; discord—ilia laying the oxo at the root of the tree
' ‘of dissension, which has grown up, in these latter
luxuriant and dark foliage, whoso roots
- Wb penetrated deep into our peaceful soil.and whoso
extend fur out, affording protection and
' ' -'Shelter to a misanthropic race, that nurse in their
• seclusion schemes of treason and disunion.
; ,<~TbVacl of assembly of 3d March, 1847, was noith* |
,'' , 5 ,«r ashed for by our people, nor from their
representatives—and U struck the public with sur
prise,end was looked upon by tho professional mind
.with nla'rm, us a bold act of defiance to the authority
M the general government, and as a distinotand tan*
glble promulgation oflho odious doctrine of the tight
hf, Suto government lo nullify a solemn act of Con |
grass, passed in conformity to an important const!*
? V„ ,; provision. It is entitled an act “to prevent
preserve Iho public poaco, prohibit tho
iVV«ghf«4a of emuin powers heretofore exorcised'by
■''ihdge*» justices oflho peace, aldermen and jailors In
■ this' Commonwealth, and lo repeal certain slave
■ laws.**
Instead of that, it should have been styled an net
to abrogate the 3d clause of the 2d section of the 4(h‘
. article of the constitution oflho United Slates, repeal
r ', and nbltify and set at defiance tho 3d section of the
Congress of I2lh February, 171)3, and lo pro
bloodshed and murder. Such a tltle%0(i!(l
-< lo character with such a law. Yet lam
lofbdMd, that bad as it is. it was hurried through the
legislature of that year, without much consultation,
, er examination of Its provisions, by the members
thereof} and that it is, in addition, almost a literal
iraWcripl of a Massachusetts statute, which was
/procppM by the spirit of abolitionism, so nfo in that
‘ ,«Ule, add enacted into a law ostensibly to carrjnnto
1 V cffect ! sSd confirm the decision of the Supremo Court
‘ 0 f Uw United Stales, in the case of Prigg v. the
CoroinobwottUh of Pennsylvania, but in reality and
truth lapervcrt its spirit and roal moaning. The
blttW fruits oflho Massachusetts statute have been
jTUCCdIIy, in a most striking manner, exemplified, by j
' « gross outrage upon law and order, and. the trump
-Hog tinder fool tho constitution of our common coun
.v|fJL.and that, 100, in the city of Boston, which is
■;/ ' • innaly claimed ob the Athens.of America—
i •’ /'whore the owners of fugitives from labor ere pro.
the use of the jails of thst commonwealth, In
V ivlhe reclamation of such fugitives, and the local au
‘•/ 4 ,‘ihofltles from permitting them lo be used for such
: " ¥’ibofi>osis under severe penalties—and whore many
i foolish things hove boon done in relation to this
• V subject, which wo have boon foolish enough lo
and enact in this commonwealth.
’ rm/’Av.'ijflstice lo ourselves, theroforo, lo the people of this
T<&mmoaweaUh, to Iho commonwealth herself as a
,^#V ; 'w*roo«r of this groat confcduraliun of Stales—and
- V wAboVUtll* loyally lo our national constitution,and an
desire to preserve its spirit and compromises
jl* well as a catholic love of tho Union it.
by the wisdom of our forefathers, should
«skF**l&el this question openly and fearlessly.
, :lieVuVexsmino the import and manifest tendency
of of tho act raforrod to, for tho repeal
bill is now pending.
. enacts that no judge of any oflho
Coarls qf this commonwealth, nor any alderman or
jaetlpMrUw peace of said commonwealth shall have
jurlraldtlctti or. take cognisance of tho case of any
tifgftiVulVbai labor under tho act of Congress of tho
13l(i jFW>ra»ry, ItDO, entitled, “ An act respecting
fa»Uhf£s'fyi)(n justice, and persons escaping from the
•errwo of lheir musters,” ond forbids such judge,
•Idefntan, or justice issuing any certificate or war*
rsbl of removal of any such fugitive from labor by
wlttboof saiid act, or any other act of Congress, un*
degWfero penalties—that of being guilty of a mis*
~ Aefflpftnpr in ofiico, and being also subjoctud to a fine
/ x>,C of not less than five hundred and not exceeding one!
: .C/jhpttfsnd dollars. And yet tho gentleman from A).I
|e|heny (Mr. Digham,) staled in debate the other 1
n no lawyer (omphaslng the term) would
/ praWnd to say, that tho act of assembly of March
‘ 3d,18i7. repealed any of the provisions oflho act of
Cotfitbas of February 13111,1793. Sir, lam willing
(o steuke whatever reputation I may have as a lawyer
lu'tbiiwino scnlo with that of the gentleman from Al*
Iflgbonfi snd abide the issue, as to whether (ho act of
itfMteMj.rofcrrcd to docs not avowedly, and In efTcoti
reiJbrttha. provisions of tho not of Congress uf 13lli
.rotfOTfY*l793, so far as they relate to the duties of
’ jfifiWS&w the poaco, under that act. 1 am aware
/U&rafctfenlleman from Allegheny is opposed lo the
?T*bl* nn d i* anxious lo retain the act
1847, upon our statute book, of which
tho god.fathcr, on this floor, at Us birth.
ward also that that gentleman carried many
trophies hpme with him by reason of his having se.
tmrsd Us passage, and that ho was received in trl-
Ilfbbh by his constituents —and that oven the free
./Sifroiesod fugitive slaves oflho city of Pittsburgh
ib«,epunly ol Allegheny presented him with s
njwed cane, as a token of regard for tho oml*
ho h Q d rendered In their behalf, end ns
' of their appreciation of his exalted
|&fS,W|tlcß. Sir. could 1 bo as distinguished a
tny lord Coke, or lord Mansfield, or oven
an from Allegheny himself, (for since tho
jpiuwipFwlho act of 3d March, 1847, wo must con*
•IdtfhU&t greater constitutional lawyer than either
I bo as conspicuous as either of these
three gireet .legal lights, two of whom have shone in
. great effbtgenoo upon tho eastern hemisphere, and
one atill shining upon this, I am very certain I could
never b« io fortunate as to become the recipient of
fuol| hqhors* Wo have hoard much said hero 1 ond
9 elsewhere on the subject of the M Koine letter,” but
WCOpW know something of tho effects of (he gold
heede4 actof Assembly—and those effects have
' Seen Übood in blood throughout the different portions
pflbe,commonwealth. In the county which 1 have
’ r ibe honor in part to represent on this floor, the pss*
iigoofthal act produced, and ai I behove was tho
' ' lC ''3frootaDd immediate cause, of one oflho most fearful
- riots (hat ever occurred within tho limits
hnniinir anTTrlnolpte of constitutional liberty, as transmitted tiou. fabric of oqr republican inalitulions. The
orihaloonniy.andwhichroßuUodinlho bonUog d p,lnp fm mother country, and guarded by latter was designed for purposes of faction and
maiming with slinks >'° h^™ a Ricans with a walohfol care. The writ of ftnallaiem.and right well has It served the des.gn
death »V.r„7‘ n M v d-t 7orb°ood effects hahta. cerpua is a privileged writ, and is granted , and object of its framers. , - •
boring slate of Maryjan, „„„{, of lho aa a maU ' r of ri ght by the terras of the oonslitu- . The 7lh section also repeals so much of the act
' oolUioaf metropolis, thocapital of lho slat. itself. lion, both of the United Slates and the slate of of the Ist Match, im aa provides slave
P The 4th section is ostensibly aimed against those Pennsylvania. The second clause of the 9lh sec-' shall not be admitted to bear witness a
who shall, under any pretenc. or authority toAolso- 0 f the Ist article’of the constitution of the freeman. ■ Now this portion of the act ot 1780
eosr, (referring no doubt to lho provisions of the act United Slaots, and the 14th section of the 9lh at- was merely declaratory of what wits' the common
of Congress of 19th February, 1793,) violently and : , io | o of tb „ „6nelitulion of Pennsylvania, both ex- law, and is so at the present period. Ihe repeal,
tumultuously sciro upon and carry away, or attempt | _ (e9B |y dec | arQ in precisely the same terms, that therefore, of that portion of the act ot 1780, mere
to do so, in a riotous, tumultuous and unroasonablo !i The privilege of a writ of habeas eorput shall ly throws us back upon the common law, and
manner, so as to endanger the public peace, any . 0 Suspended, unless when in oases of rebel- would not permit a slave now to bo a witness
negro or mulatto wilbm this commonwealth, cither .. • s nvaB i on i bo public safety may require U." against a freeman. The repealing statute does
aith or without the intention of taking such negro or J 1 0? ”^ rl , endured to the people by relieving nit enact that a slave may be a witness against a
mulatto before any district or circuit J“ J «« " r ‘hem from bloody cruellies and legal murders, bat freeman, but merely repea sso much of the ad of
United Slates, the person or persons so offending I" .7 . d .us bv ‘ the confused lerrende of a 1780 as prevents a slave giving testimony against
shall bei sentenced to pay a fine of notless than one perpelrer.d with irapu-Uy poison whalaoaver, which Is mere y repealing
hundred, nor more than one thousand dollars. . dark age, anu wnion p y nharloa I nnthinn at all, and la therefore perfectly nonaensi- i
- This s’cetionie a broad denial of the right of sei- n.ly down to the passage ifcaS fareiel' Tha Bth section of Franklin’,
zuro and rocapluro incident to. a right of pr.operlyi 2nd, lho second Mhgntt Charla o h.S „ y ’whis-h misled to the testimony ofslavesi was
and prohibits the .owner orthe,slaV«yon with a Even the supplement to the act of 18lh Feb u- act, whichi re a edto^the
warrant of arrest in his hand, (as ilssys "undoraoy a fy 1793, passed by Congress on the IBlh Sept, 18- merely eola, “W lh ® ““"J "J 1 . ’ wbo
pretence of nolhorily whatsoever,” from using, is 50, commonly celled .“the fugitive slave bill, the lllh scolion, taloling to an owner ofl
much force as may be necessary for its duo execution, gth section of which declares that the certificate resided in eny other State or aaaal „ !i"’
in taking •• each negro or mulatto before any district granted under said act “ shall be conclusive of the his elaves within this commonwealth, was decla
ereireeft judge." fi„ bt 0 f the person or persons in whoso favor ratory of international law. .Neither of lhesa
By this (ho parson claiming tho right is placed in j.. - en j ove auo h fugitive to the state or ter- sections made the aw, and their repeal therefore
the position of a wrong door, if ho attempt to assert f, om which he eeooped, and shall prevent could not unmake It, as the mistaken wiseacres of
that tight as goarantood by lho constitution of tha .11 molestation of euch person or persona by any the Pennsylvania legislatere of 1847, imagined.
United Stales. All the slave has to do is to raise op . . . . C J OI , ] u j„ e or magialraio Mr. Speaker—! he first object declared in tile
outcry and resist the legally constituted authorities, P naraon whomsoever”—close not in the preamble to the oonelilolion of the United Stales,
so as to produce a breach of lho peace in Ins arrest; , r . . J 1 ab)eB , jurilJ i a auBpon d'the writ of aa the motive for its adoption by the people is,
and the master is subjected to the severe penalties of ?£!"'“ Sucll J waB tba opinion of attorney "in order to form a more perfect onion.” How
11,1. seel 00 of lho act 0f1847. Tin. Is reversing all huita, Thl“V.. tho opinion of was this lobe done, except by the different eeo,
legat rights and all legal romedios. • ? . Grlor a „ d Kane in the case of Henry Gar- Ilona and Inlereats of tho country making mutual 1
in anothcn'etalQ 11 riglitwliicti .1- Lhhaard before the circuit court for the eastern concessionsl The eyelera
ways existed by international law before the adoption district of Pennsylvania, Dot. 18lli, 1850—a copy existed at. lhat ““J l" " S 's ’
oCcur constitution, and which wna recognised as the 0 f which opinion I have before me. Such alee I believe in all, wilh the ample.exception of the
law of nations'by Pennsylvania herself, in lho act of was (he .opinion of eminent jurists in the city of State of Massachusetts. In Pennsylvania there
March, Ist, 1780, for the gradual abolition ofalavery, Now York, in the more recent case of the fugitive had been an act passed isl March, 1780, for its
which act was drawn by Dr. Benjamin Franklin.— o nry Long—and In the late case of Stephen gradual abolition* but the system still existed.
The Hth section ol that act contains lho following g enn ei j n Philadelphia, writs of habeas corpus It was an institution for which the people of tins
remarkable provision os Illustrative of the sense of wero simultaneously allowed and Issued By the country were not responsible, but U had been en
iho country at tho«poriorl, apd in tho midst of lho BUDremo QoUrt 0 f this Stale, and by the district tailed upon them by the cupidity of others, and
American Revolution. It puts to the blush lho false Co s rt of lho United Stales. And in still more re- had* grown with their growth and strengthened
philanthropy of the present day, of men, who are .... !n Philadelphia, it has been the con- strength, until It had becoraq entwined
constantly prating about the Declaration of Indcpon.. 0 f district court of the United wilh every interest and fibre of the body politic,
dence and the equality of man : - Stoles to remove the proceedings on habeas corpus To abolish it at that time was utterly impraclica
“ That this or any other thing in it contained shall before the United Slates Commissioner, do- ble, and would have led to a mixture of races, or
not give any relief or shelter to any absconding or nendenev * elrifo between them for the mastery, which the
runaway negro or mulatto slave or servant, who has ff P &| lhe £ rore 0 f the SIH section of the philanthropist and patriot must ever deprecate,
absconded himself, or shall absent himself, bis lh Aj Bareli, \847, Is a mere question of The question was to bo met* therefore, and dis
other owner, master or mistress, reading in any ““ ”, “ e % “‘J® ’ 80 w e infringono right, ue poßodof, 6rno union of tho Sutles could he formed.
tl Uiaf wVu is Otways' is S sua°hls as a mailer of Lae. [, mar lu , o f ojnsiUaU. rnuisaUW
and take away, hie slave or servant, as he mighthave without further legislative sanction. By suffering bearanee and enlarged patriotism, by. the great
had in case this act had not been made.'* ' 1 Smith's Uto remain on our statute books, we give no right men of the revolution, in a manner worthy oi our
Laws, 495. - but what was before Us passage abundantly, and imitation.
This is merely declaratory of the international lapermanently secured to every individual. By ,In (he third clause of tho second section of the
on this subject, and is a broad docUiation of the law repealing it, wo express our sense of the In- fourth article of the Constitution of the United
as it was understood at’the period of lho revolution, justice of all that portion .of,.the act referred to, Slates, it is provided lhqf,*‘ No person held to
It was not to affirm anything contained in any of the which impedes,* interrupts or hinders tho master service or labor in one Slate,ohdpr the laws .thfire
articles of confederation. The articles of confodqra- f rom re within this commonwealth his fu- 0 f escaping into another, shall, In consequence of
lion adopted Bth July, 1778, (article d, section s,) „|t| VQ slave according to, the provision of the con- any law or regulation therein, be dlcpharged from
contains a provision relative to the delivering up ol a jjj U |j on 0 f the United States and the acts,of Con- guqh service or labor, but-sh&U -be delivered up,
fugitives from justice, but make no provision lor le - reBS j n conformity therewllH. oh.claim of the parly to whom such service or la
delivery of fugitive, ton. .The clause, ll,ere. B Ahh h , lh) , 4 ction of lhe 80t raa , nol ba bof Jn ,v bo J uo ,”
Mn'r’eh 1780 wldch orovidcs Hie like remedy^ (or Hie considered nnoonslitotionoi, li is clearly vexatious ; rfo«f, sir, this is a plain provision, and easily
in its character, , ll aulliorl.es tha issue of lhe obiBr ;, , oo d. U maniresily moans lhat whan a
have had in cose ihioadkai not been mode," osn ofdy writ “ai all lima, on application made. Now a i avoe Bcipes from one Slate ot territory lalo.an
relor lo tiis fight as it Misled by the law of nations, suppose a case to bo heard before a oommiasioner, olber, he JiMbc dolhircd up hglhe aalhorjha of the
This hat blwav* been decided lo bo lho law; U or district or clrcqlt judge, of the U. the, stale or-Uwkiry into winch hehas escaped, on claim
wurvarulcd In England by all‘tho Judges until the act of Congress Of IBlh September. u f the party to whom he owes service or labor.—
great Soraeraet cate, when lord' Mansfield decided that a certificate of removal has already been be delivered up—whereT In the State
otherwise. That case has, however, never been con- granted, the owner might be arrested on the verge o r 'i prr jiory to which’he escaped.. He shall not be
sidored sound law, and hoe been expressly overruled of crossing the elate line with his properly, and jiaohorged from such service or labor in conse
by numerous decisions sinco that period. It was subjected lo vexatious delay and when quenSo of any regulation therein—wherein?
pungently reviewed In a oa«o which arose by appeal h|s right had been already, clearly esiabllshedi— why, In the Stale or territory lo which he has fledi
from an order by earl Bathurst. „, #C S| The'difficulty might have occurred In case he had Well, then, if ho is not lo be discharged by anV
Haggard's Admirably reports 94, decided Jtti Wo. o Ltaliied bis certificate of. removal under the act j aw of regulation of the Slate or territory into
vernber' 1827.) In this decision, lord Stowel (Sir of CongrcBB of 12m Feb.. 1793, from a justice of whlch he haa fledt by what authority Is he, by the
al ?.?° Iff f, . r i?ll'b. ,0 il f7l.ve brMlhina llle P oa “ ot m »8' 8lral8 - ln eilher oaBe lh ” lorme of lho Conslllolion, lo bo delivered upl
tho/ree Jirof £ogLd-.n sir perfeetly loaded Jd writ might bo used for vexatious purposes. _ Evidonlly by eorao law or regulation therein. He
Impregnated will? the mie.roa of do.peti.m in it. The 6th section of the sot of 3d March. 1817, aba l| not be disdiorgsd in oonsequencs of any law
worst forms. Lord Stowel stales in that csss that prohibits tha use of any jail or prison of this com- „r regulation of such Slate or territory, but thattbe
the decision of lord Mansfield in the Somerset case monweallh for tho detention of any person claimed delivered up. The two requirements, of not dis
hed never been considered law, and had never been as a fugitive from labor, and Inflicts a penally of charging, and delivering up, are in the same eon
practically assented to since, and that slave sailors g ve hundred dollars on any jailor or keeper of any tonoo.and manifostly refer lo an exercise of power
bad been constantly in the habit of visiting the ports prison, who shall offend against the provisions of by tho same authority having tho
ofGreat Britain, and returning again to tha West (bis section, subjects him also to a removal from | aw or regulation spoken of under itsoohtrol. The
Indies, without any prolence that by having breathed o ffl co| and renders him incapable of holding the provision would read just as well were it written,
lho free air of they (hereby ’became liber- Q^ce of a ,j a jj or . o r keeper ora prison for the pe- that he shall not be discharged ffom such service
atod. Ho also denies the doctrine, because he says, . od h(8 nalura j |j or labor, but shall be delivered up by some law or
re.V Tl» V 'f^llifor^oor o 'irftoTjS re- ° f '““ 818,0 '° * hM> 1,8 hBB
fho me?hM?iu"rey' "tl.M were' 'would be qulreraentsLs as Insslisble ss (he grave. . Built' Is prslsndsd by some of the "higher law’.’
in tiio of tho debfor to destroy th'o sooorily of Tho repeal of this aeoilon Is all that is contained gontry , thst this olsuse of lho constitution dooa
the creditor. The only doubt on this subject has in the Senate bill, lo which I have offered the not recognize slavery at all—that ll speaks of por
boen occasioned by not discriminating between Indl. amendment pending. The passage of the Senate 80D8 held to service or labor, and lhat the word
viduals and slaves. That Lord Stowel’s opinion in bill would merely leave it discretionary with the alava'not being mentioned, wo have no right to go
tho case of the slave Grace is recognized as (aw In sheriff, jailor or keeper of any prison to receive beyond the strict letter oftheinßlruraonlilself, and
England, may be gathered from on aot of parliament the fugitive or not as he might see proper, as there } n ( or from something dehors, that slaves were in
fection 3,) passed S6III August, 1833, to abolish is no law requiring him to receive the fugitive, (ended by the phrase 11 persons held (0 service or
slavery in the British dominions (with the exception an d the Senate bill merely, removes the penalty labor. 1 '
of the East Indies and the island, of Ceylon and St. for 80 doine . j therefore propose in my amend. T|)a arffumant is , b j„. j t is contended that the
Helena) which contains the following proviso: “That me|U |0 roa) , e j, obligatory on the sheriffs, jailors d „ ho | d |n lbo BbraBß n 0 pB[ , on bB ld to set
•ll slaves who may at ony.time previous lo this sot, and |,cepeia of our prisons to receive fugitives v ; oa or tabor.*' In tha constitution, is synonymous
Aack been brought mih tho content of thtir poateotoro, r rom i abo r t the earns oa they are now roqurred to wilb lbo wor ds "bound” or "obliged”—and that
i" 1 .? ,*„? S‘/t
aU, hblvLfVil i# Deo l,e^lTO? ,e snd y ila'sanplsnrenl so ma^”6a '™ oon * r^, > obligation, du?y, or sulhorit/,
p U rpoBcs’'-plolnly declaring that when’ they were Bemb lv ° r 814• P ?h?m which lh6 law will enforce. Thus in a bond, a
| not brought with the consent of their owners, or In on the 3d day ol March, IBU. The re man acknowledges jilmself to be « held and firmly
other words were fugitives from labor, they should peal would then have some bound" to do certain things. That wherever,
not be free by this act of parliament. , .. Ad provided by the Senate bill, sheriffs, jailors t^ore f uref n person Is deaorlbed in tkie laws os bo-
The only other difficulty whi6K could arise,* in and keepers of prisons who are abolitionists may j „ be ld" to do anything—as to render *‘servloe
treating this as a question ofinternatlonallaw, as refuse .10 receive fnsmveu from labor, and’ they or q abor| »* f or example—the legal meaning Invert*
io tho right of the owner to reclaim his slave, is could not ho compelled to do their duty. Ino act j lbat ho Is held by somo legal contract or
whether slaves are considered properly. Thu of 1789 refers only to prleoners, meaning el en- which" lho, laws will enforce, either
doottine, that the laws of nations recognise slaves ly, those arrested on the charge of having • B p e( |\fl ca iiy or by compelling payment of damages!
as properly, Is sustained by nearly every judicial ted some criminal offence, or persons r V for non-porformanco. That this is the meaning, l
decision ever made eilher In England or America, some legal process issued by or under the author. u conlendcd lB man if eBt f rom tho additional
by repealed decisions of the English judges and lly of the United States* rho supploraen 0 Wo|da u andor the. laWs tberoof," referring to the
of the supremo court of the United Slates and the that act, passed the 3d March* 'Bl4, relers only g, leB or territories from which the fugitive es
several state courts. Chief justice Shaw, of Mas- to persona committed under lho authority of the This being so, ll is argued that a slave is
saohusetls. the present disaffected region, In the United States as hostages or prisoners of war, be- beld by a i egal con i rao t or obligation which
ease of the commonwealth vs. Aves, 18 Pickering, ing received by sheriffs, Jailors and prison keepers tbQ j awB enforce. That there IsnoSlato in
193, in a most elaborate opinion distinctly avows commonwealth. The case ol tugmvos Union in which the institution of slavery ia
this doctrine, and recognises the opinion of Lord from labor Is therefore clearly unprovided tor oy eBtab || abed by positive law, and that the slave
Stowel iff the case of lho slavo Grace, as the existing laws. The sheriffs, jailors and keepers .j JBre j> orl| j 8 be j d on j« by bru j 0 f orCo| and this be
law of the land. If the right of property ex- of prisons may receive fugitives from labor or tn y . lbo on j manner by which ha is held lo service
ists, that right would be powerless, unless it had may not, aa their own discretion dictates* in m » or j a L or , uis not such a contract or logoi obligor
aa incidents to its enjoyment, the right of seizure respect the Senate bill is manifestly imperteor, as the | aljVB w j|| jreoognlze. It is elated that
and recapture. , To bind down the owner of the lo tho remedy U Indicates by the bare repeat the /nui recognizee no obligation on the part of the
slavo, therefore, to the provisions of the 4lh eeo- sixth section. , -ihn slave to labor for or serve his master, and will not
lion of the aot of March 3d, 1847, would be a do- My amendment proposes lho . "Jf O LJJj: interfere to compel him—that it takes no more
nial of his right to reclaim his slave, by denying 7th section of tho act of March Jo, 1 8 cognizance of the fact whether a slave labors or
him his appropriate, remedy, or at all events by section repeals so much of the act 01 maron 1 n 0 | t j ban j| does of lhe fact whether an ox orhorse
seriously impairing It, It expressly Interfered 1780, as authorizes masters or owners 01 siav o labels, lit is pgain Insisted upon lhat this is oapo
j with' the act of Congress of 19th Fob., 1793, bring and retain such elaves within inis oommoii- (n|fl ConB ( rUo |i on 0 f this clause* of the
which authorised the master to arrest his slave wealth, for the period of six months, ana as aumor- OOQBt | tu tioni for the reason that tho vtotd . slave ia
without a warrant, and of course to exercise as izes members of Congress, foreign roimaier® »« nol mentioned* but it is a person held lo service or
much forco as might be necessary to enforce his consuls from bringing and keeping tnetr emv i abor .and that suoh being tho written loiter of the
right. As’well might* the legislature enact that within ouf territory. This seventh section 0 » flonBt J tul | on4 wo ar o not at liberty lo go behind its
the collector of customs in Philadelphia shall be aot of March 3d, 1847, Is simply oiiensivo, uu- wr j Ucn (errns, and Infer what Is not contained, on
subjected lo severe penalties, unless ne collect the courteous and insulting in Us character, ij-ote- f aco „io resort to something beyond the inatru
oustoms In a particular way, and carry into effect cards altogether iho.modorate views of those greai | tto jr | 0 history or iradltTon* to asoohaln its
tlie law of tho United States, os directed by this men who were lho lathers of the AbollHon aooie y lfUO j ptont aad moaning* That If such be tho
State. Would It not be manifest, that such an of Pennsylvania—the views of such men a motbod 0 f interpretation* there would bo ho use In
aot would produce conflict of authority between Franklin, Pemberton, Rush, Wlßtnr,ltawio ono Having written constitutions, as there would be no
the slate and the national governments? In tfio others—men who were cotoinpornrios ol the men gaj . ol j n B | lo j r guaranteos, or certainly as lo their
ease of reclaiming a slave the master exercises a of the revolution, and who participated m mav
conslllutional right, lo say nothing of intornalion- glorious aohlovemont. These men understood ana j concelvo a ft j r Btalo .
al law, and that right cannot be impaired by an in- respected tho position of the citizens ot 0 B ® u ”j lba nimimenL whloh while It’professes to
ferior and subordinate authority. • Tho 4th section ern alavcholding Slates, and were disposed to treat men ho argumenL whloh^
onmont of "any human being, within ihi. common- 1847 oont.ln,. lho germ, of Intoieranoo end des- irasgn*lobe of phll.nthropy
wealth. ° This suction I doom flon.iitullonnl,.l- poli.m. The formor wa. framed by wise men, aad “"I”"*
though it may be an unnecessary re-affirmance, of men who ebw the dawn of republican liberty* •j M ® r . - nmn i fl i n n f tniußtloA htAntr Hnns
aoonaillulbn.lproTlln.aa well., of a nltled [who., .(out heart, and alrong arma reared lh. glo- .low. m.y not complain of Inju.lloo being don.
OOROOOKTRT-MiT ITAI.WAYB BB 810 HT-BDT R 10HT OR WRONG , 008 COUNTRY
PA-, THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1851
them, and that the force of their argument may be
felt by this House.. '• _ . *
I have no doubt myself that the safest rule of
interpretation, and in fact the only just one, In ref
erence to this clause of the constitution, is, to look
to the nature and objects of the particular powers,
duties and rights contained therein, as understood
at its adoption, by its framersi We ail know his
torically that the object of this clause was to ee
cure to the citizens'of the slaveholding States the
complete right and title to the ownership of their
slaves, as properly, in every State of the Union
into which they might escape from the State where
they were held in servitude. 16 Peters, 610*11.
In the National Convention which framed the
constitution, Mr. Butler arid Mr. Pinckney, of
Sooth Carolina, moved to require “fugitive slaves
and servants to be delivered up Uke criminals/*
“Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, saw no moroi
propriety in tho public seizing end surrendering
a slave or servant, than a horse."— Madison's pa
pers, 1477-8.
In consequence of this objection the language
of the provision was changed to what we no w find
it, so as to accomplish the same thing without of
fending the northern delegates by the use of the
terra, slave, which was offensive to them.
Before the constitution was adopted, and when
it was being discussed in the State conventions,
Mr. Pinckney said to the people of South Caroli
na, “ We have obtained a right to recover our slaves
in whatever part of America they may lake refuge;
which is a right we had not before.” v
Judge Iredell, of North Carolina, eaid In the
convention of that State, that the provision was
intended to refer to slaves; but that “ the northern
delegatee, owing to their particular scruples on the
subject of slavery, did not choose the word slave
to be mentioned.
Mr. Madison said the same thing in Virginia,
and he knew as much, and perhaps more, than any
other one man, of the. proceedings of the conven
tion which framed our constitution, as he was the
great working man of- that convention, and to whom
we are.lndebted for faithful and accurate reports
of its proceedings.
Besides it is a well known fact, that the consti
tution could never have been formed or adopted,
had not the southern people had their rights secur
ed, in reference to the absorbing subject of slavery;
not only as to the reclamation of fugitives from la
bor, but'thcu political rights also, in making .the
slave population a part of the basis of representa
tion in the national councils. This double securi-
ty was a sine qua non, with them, when they con
sented to enter the Federal Union, as is universal
ly understood and acknowledged. The history of
the times end the vast interests at stake, which
hung upon this single question at the formation of 1
the government, utterly preclude any other inter- '
pretation being given the clause in question, than *
that which Is. universally conceded by all well '
wishers of our country, and Its unimpaired nation- 1
ellty.
But even if a-hard and rigid construction of the
constitution, as contended forty the anti-slavery
advocates, could be held to be the true one, are we
of the north to be guilty of the monstrous fraud of
denying our own solemn engagements as under
stood at Us adoption! Are we to turn round and
| say—true, at our particular request the word slave
was not mentioned in that Inslrdment, but yet we
will now deny the essential elements of'our com
pact with our southern brethren 7 add thus defraud
them of their rights under color of law, and rob
them of their-property 1 and that too by the very
terms of the instrument addpted tor their protec
tion! I tel! you, Mr. Speaker, there is a high
court of chancery, the court of chancery in which
tho great seal is held by the people, that would
cut right through such a fraud, and repudiate and
disown its vile concootors, and sever at once and
forever tills Gordian knot of duplicity and double
dealing. This Peter Teasio ana Lysauder Spoon
| er construction of the constitution, is contrary to
’ all settled rules. Tho broad bald facts of history
“ on this subject, stand out in bold relief and are tho
[ living expounders of the meaning of that instru
ment. “The fairest and most rational mode,”
says Diacketcme, “to interpret the will of the leg*
Islator ie, by exploring his Intention at the (lino
when the law was made, by signs, the most natu
ral and proper; and these signs, nre either the
words, the context, the subject matter,'the effects
and consequences, or the spirit and. reason of the
law. “If the words happen to be dubious, wo
may establish their meaning from the context.”—
Some may consider the.phrase “persons held to
service or labor, 1 ’ in the clause referred to, dubi
ous. Abolitionists and fanatics may say that It
does not robdn slaves, In the sense Implied by the
common’acceptation of that term. And on this
subject, Blackslone again says, “the most univer
sal and effective way of discovering the true mean
ing of a law, where the words are dubious, is by
considering (ho reason end spirit of it, or the cause
which moved (he Legislature to enact if.”
But sir, what is the act of Congress of. 12tb of
February, 1793, passed in conformity with the
clause referred to in the constitution of the United
States, the provisions of which act are repealed by
the all potent enactment of the Pennsylvania legis
lature of the 3d March, 1647. 1 read from Cor
don’s digest, pago 801*2:
1 “Where any person held to labor In any of the
United States, or lo either of the territories on the
north-west or south of the river Ohio, under the
lawa thereof, shall escape into any other of the
said slates 6r territories, the person to whom such
labor or service may bo due, his agent or attorney,
Is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such ftigt*
live from labor, and to take him or her before any
judge of the circuit or district courts of the United
Slates, residing or being within the State, or be*
1 foro any magistrate of a county, oily, or town cor
-1 porate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall bo
made, and upon proof, lo the satisfaction of such
1 judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or
affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate
of any such state or territory, that the person so
soizeu or arrested, doth under the laws of the state
or territory, from which he or she fisd, owe service
or labor lo the person claiming him or her, it shall
bo (he duty of sboh Judge or magistrate to give a
certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent or
attorney, which shall bo sufficient Warrant for re
moving the said fugitive from labor, to the state
or territory from which bo or she fled,”
This act expressly authorizes the person to whom
the service or labor may bo duo or his agent or at*
tornoy lo Uho the fugitive before any magistrate of ,
a county, oily, or town corporate, wherein aald fugi
tive shall be arreated, and also authorises such mag
istrate, and enjoins upon him as a duly, to give a
certificate of removal lo the owner oftho alavo, or lo
bis agent or attorney, when the proof is sufficient to
establish the fact nf (ho fugitive owing such service
or labor. Now this is an express power given by
the highest legislative authority of the country, and
ja entitled to the obedience of every stale in the Con
federacy, and to the obedience of the people and con
stituted authorities of every state.
But it is said that the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States, in (he case of Prigg vs; the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, decided, Inal all legislation by the'
states, auxiliary to the design oftho act ofCongross
of 13th February, 1793, la unconstitutional ami void.
The case ofFrigg neVet decided that, as will appear
from a careful examination of (ho reasoning of (ho
court, and that was not the point for adjudication
before the court. It decided that our own apt of as*
•embly of 95th,March, 1826, waa unconstitutional In
soma of Us provisions, in aa much as while it profess. I
ed to aid the master to recover his fugitive slave, If J
ATSJOOPB Apfll;
m. 48
threw serious' impediments. In the way, and ofleii
prevented his an doing. ■ The act of Congress -wap
efficient enough, and binding upon justice# df. tho
peace or magistrates, without the stepping In oF the
legislature, and forbidding tlie justices of the peace .
from acting in the premises, and substituting tho
judges of tho courts of common ploae, in Iholr-rodfti
and stead, to grant certificates of removal. The
real point decided in tho case of Prigg la concisely
aisled In the syllabus from which 1 toad, 16 Peters,
“The clause of tho constitution of llio tjnltei
Stales, relating to fugitives from labor, manifestly
contemplates tho existence of a positive,
right, on the part of the owner of the slave, which no
state law or regulation can In any qualify,
ulale, control, or restrain. Any stale law or roguia;
lion, which Interrupts, limits, delays, or postpones
tho rights of the owner to the immediate command
of his service or labor,operates, pro lanto t a discharge
oflho slave therefrom.' Tho question con never be,
how much ho is discharged from, lint whether ho la
discharged from any, by the natural or necessary
operation oflho alalo laws or slate regulations. Tho
question is not one of quaolilyor degree, buVof
withhold or controlling tho incidents of a positive
right." ■ i
Tho history of the case of Prigg is this: Edward
Prigg, & citizen of tho alato of Maryland, waa indict*
ed ter kidnapping, in tho court of oyer and terminer
of York county, in Ibis slate, for having forcibly
taken and carried away from that county, to tho
alalo of Maryland, a negro woman named. Margaret
Morgan, with tfio design and intention of her being
held, sold and disposed of as d slave ter life,contrary
Ito tho statute of this stale, .passed on the 251 h of
March, 1826, to which I have already referred,-!-
Margaret Morgan was a slave for life, under tho laws
of Maryland, of Margaret Ashmore, a citizen 61 dipt
state. Edward Prigg was duly appointed and au
thorized as tho agent and attorney of Margaret Ash?
more, and having obtained a warrant-ftoru a juellpo
ofthe peace of York couniy, Caused Margaret Mor
gan to bo arrested os a •fugitive- from labor, by a
constable of Pennsylvania. She was brought befort
i a justice of the peace of the couniy of-York, who
I under the provisions of our Pennsylvania statute ol
951 h March, 1826, refused to lake cognizance of tllb
case. Prigg then carried tier and her children Into
Maryland, and delivered them up to Margaret Ash
more. Tho real question, therefore, and tho only
one to bo determined by the court, was; whether (ho
alato of Pennsylvania could violate her own solerim
compact and agreement to deliver up a fugitive slave
on the claim ofhie master, mode in accordance with
an act of .Congress, and baaed upon, tho provision
constitution of the U. S., relative to fugitives from
labor, by enacting that such master should be deemed
guilty ofa felony, in case lie look and carried away
by force and violence from her territory, his fugitive
slave—the first section of tho act of 25th of Match,
1820, making the taking and carrying away by force
and violence any negro or mulatto flrom any parts of
this Commonwealth, to any.other place or places out
of lliia Commonwealth, with the design of holding
lor disposing of such negro or mulatto as a slave, a
I lha 3d section of tlio aclorSSlh Much.
1836, w bilo it mode it the duly of n judge, ju.lioo of
tho poacQ or alderman, to issue tits Warrant under
his hand end seal, directed to Hie slierifT, or any con.
stabin of the proper city or county, on Hie application
of any.person or his ogont or attorney under oath,,
claiming any fugitive slave, that warrant enty
powered tho sheriff or constable to take sucbfbgUif#
: before a Judge of tho proper county, who, te.tbs>SJWj*
olusion of jualicee and aldermen was empowered Tty
grant tbo ceftlffoater or removal—wMchoome* to 1
direbt oonffyet with the fld section of Ihe act of Con
gress of iSlb February, 1793. which expressly’au- r
thorites any judgo of tho circuit 6r district court of
the Stales, or any magistrate of a eohhty,
city or town corporate, upon proof to Ida satisfaction
to give a cerli/icate (hereof io such claimant, his
agent or attorney, which shall bo a sufficient wafrsflt
ter removing said fugitive. , ■
Anti tho 9th section of the act of Sdth of March,’
11826, enacts (list no alderman or justice of the peace
of thia Commonwealth, ahull have jurisdiction, or
[lake cognizance of the case of any fugitive from la
bur from any of the United Slates or territories under
a certain act of Congress, passed the 12lh of Febru
ary, 1793, entitled u an act respecting fugitivea from.
justice and persons escaping from the service of their,
masters;” nor shall any alderman or justice ofthe
peace of this Commonwealth issue or grant any cof»
(ideate or warrant of removal of any such fugitive
from labor aforesaid, except in the monnef and to the
effect provided in the third eeetion of thie act, upon thu
application, affidavit, or testimony of ony person or
persona whatsoever, tinder the eaid act of, Congrtd/,
or under any other lau, or del of the Con• ’
greet if the United State*, and then Imposes a penal,
ty for tho violation of this section, ofthe justice being
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, in office, and sub*
joclcd to a And of not less than five hundred dollars,,
and not exceeding one thousand dollars—as direct
and unequivocal en act of nullification as can .be
found on the slatuto hooka uf South Carolina herself.
Again, tho 4lh section oflho act of 251 b March,
1826, provides that no Judge, justice of the peace, or.
alderman shall issue a warrant oh the application df
any agent or attorney os provided In the 3d section,’
unless tho said agent or attorney shall in addition to
his own oath or offirmation, produce the affidavit of
the claimant ofthe tegUive, taken before and certified
by a juatice ofthe peace or other tnaglstrsls author,
lied to administer osthe, in the slate or territory in
ytliioh aiich claimant slit'.! reside, and accompanied
by the certificate of the authority of such justice
or magistrate to administer oaths signed by the clerk
or prulhonolary, and authenticated by the soil of a
court of record InsuolisUtoor territory, which affidavit
shall slate said claimants title to the service of such
fugitive, and also the name, ago and description of
, the person ofauch fugitive—while the act of Congress
i of 12th February, 1793, empowers tho claimant or
his agent or attorney to take such fugitive before any
[ judgo of the circuit or district court of tho United
‘ States' in tho elate, or before any,magistrate of a,
county, city, or town corporate, without warrant,'
and upon proof to the aaljsfoelhm of such judge or
magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit, that
such fugitive does owe service or labor, the hortllj.
cate is thereupon grouted; giving (ho eomoautborily
to (lie agent or attorney aa to tho claimant himself,
and not requiring the agent or attorney to make outf
almoAl his entire ease oven before a warrant it issued
at all, aa wo< provided by the act of assembly 0f251h
March. 1636.
That not, in tho leme decided by (ho supremo
court of tho Unllod Stoles In the case ofprigg, is of
that class of stale laws or regulations, which inter,
nipt, limit, delay, or pustponatho rights of (he owner
to the Immediate command of tho service or labor of
his slave, and theroforo operates te that extent, as a
discharge of the slivo therefrom.
Thus tfi'6 act of assembly of QSlh March, 1826,
comes in conflict in lovoral important particulars
with tho sot of Congress of 12th vabruary, 1793.
The act of Congress authorises the claimant to ar.
rest the fugitive without a warrant. The act of
assembly referred to, required ono in express terms.
Tho act of congress admits tho oath of the owner of
bis sgont In proof of his claim. Tho Pennsylvania
law excluded both, end required the testimony of
indifferent persons. Tim act. of congress protects
the claimant from ipnnccossary delay and expense.
Tho Pennsylvania law outhorued delay upon the
suggestion of the fugltivo, and barihened the olaim.
ant with additional costs. The act of congress Im.
poses a penalty fur obstructing or hindering the clni*
mantih the prosecution and enforcement of his rights'
Our act fcavo him no redress,
i Tho only point, therefore, decided by the supremo
court In tlie osso of Prigg, as is seen /fora this stats,
* menl of tho facts, was the undpnslllutlonslUv pflM
, sof.of tho Pennsylvania legiWatursof 25th Marcn< t
, 18»6| and Ihs balance of (he oplnfon Judgumoiy,
! .. to wh.lh« 81.1. k«nd to taw,
(CmchJtJ ci% Fourth pogt)