7 iticedmany of its provisions, I have no doubt is unconstitutional ; and I think, in these points it fronjhas not yet been judged constitutional. It is entlemot, however, my purpose to argue its-constitu- he rationality. I meet in this case, as I did in the morelaw of 1793, the vague charge of unfaithfulness 3 Re. on our part with a general denial. I call your 3 has attention, s”o to ttie ^act ^at ^ere prevails not among the people very generally an idea that dern many of the provisions of that law are uncon- ?ient stitutional. This idea tends to produce irrita- does tion. Why do the people adopt the idea that > noj. it is unconstitutional ? The subject being colling lateral, I will only allude to that section of the nee law which confers judicial powers on commis- tent sioners appointed by the courts, who are not, iith- and cannot, thus appointed, be judges. The ow people believe this provision unconstitutional, sxe- and so do I. hio. Again: the bill gives ten dollars for a de- ive' cision in favor of the claimant, and five for a aal^ decision in favor of the fugitive. Gentlemen to here have ridiculed the idea that such an inver ducement could bias the magistrate, but I belt lieve with the people that such magistrates as aw you generally have, under this law, would be 3r0 determined by a thirtieth part of the fee that ten was paid Judas Iscariot for like services. The for people, for what I know, may think this pro- by vision unconstitutional. I agree with them so us far as to say, that if meanness in a law could jn make it unconstitutional, the people are right. | Again, there is another provision in the law: 3e when you have got the certificate of the magis- j ia trate, the alleged fugitive can be taken out of’ >e the State in defiance of the writ of habeas i e. corpus. Thus the law, in time of profound peace, strikes down this great writ of freedom, and in this I also agree with them. The law not only denies the writ of habeas corpus, but it also denies the trial by jury—an essential right. It is these portions of the law that render it so odious and unpopular. The people know that its execution is attended with t dangers to human freedom, and they are jeal- 3 ous of summary proceedings so extraordinary i and unusual. t Sir, we have never denied the obligation of ( the States to deliver fugitives who are such within the purview of the Constitution of the United States—never, never. But the law is an exceedingly offensive and obnoxious law. You know that without my telling you. The people of the free States are deeply imbued with the sentiment that, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, as under the law of nature, every innocent man has a right to liberty. They do, however, well know, and so understand, that the Constitution of the United States permits a man in one State, who is held by the laws thereof to owe service or labor to another man, to be reclaimed when he flees from such obligation, to be delivered up to such claimant. This provision of the Constitution our people neither deny nor resist. But ® £ I the Senator from Georgia, and every other Senator, knows how difficult it is to execute a I law which goes against the hearts and con- । sciences of the great mass of the people. We may complain of it; we might even deplore it; but no law-making authority could mend the case. Nothing short of the interposition of Almighty power, changing the hearts of. men, can make them prompt and eager to execute your obnoxious law. I do not stand here to-.,deceive you, my friends. I tell you the truth just as it is. Out of every thousand men who shall see a race between a claimant and a slave, nine hundred and ninety-nine will, from the bottom of their hearts, wish him to escape. Neither you nor I can help the matter by legislation. Acting as magistrates sworn to execute the law, it may be executed when a case is completely made out, beyond all chance for casuistry or cavil; but very little practical benefit can result from it. Who is to be blamed for it ? Look at your own section, and you find there human nature exactly the same, when the slave trader brings the slaves stolen from Africa into your ports in violation of the laws making the act piracy, and denouncing against it the punishment of death. Your jurors acquit him against all evidence and the admonitions of the courts. The innocent men thus stolen from Africa, and thus brought into your States, are irreclaimably sold in your markets; ostentatiously advertised, and sold at your agricultural fairs. I assert, then, that the slave pirate goes abroad with impunity in your States, because your magistrates cannot execute the law. With what face, then, can you stand here, and accuse us of not being swift-footed enough in executing a law which is a greater abomination to us than the laws abolishing the African slave trade can be to you ? Mr. President, there should be a little reason and common sense exercised in these cases. I do not care if every judge and every marshal may be ever so eager to execute your law; if the hearts of the people, I say again, are opposed to it, who is to blame for that ? If there is any blame, it is on Him who moulded the hearts of men. Your law can give you no remedy. You may multiply its penalties ; you may make it bristle all over like a porcupine with penalties ; it would be of no service to you; because, although when you get a case you may execute it under the oaths of your magistrates, ninety- nine times in one hundred, the people being against you, the fugitive will find a way to escape in precisely the same way that your pirates, who bring men from Africa and sell them, in the market, constantly escape with yoau Now, sir, I would have just as much ground to stand here and accuse the whole South of being guilty of perjury, and guilty of the most manifest violation of all law, because the victims of the Wanderer were not released, and the officers of that vessel condepmed and exe-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=