crated, as they deserved to be, as you have to stand forth and say that we on our part do not execute laws equally and far more odious to us. The next accusation, and the strongest one, of the Senator from Georgia, is, that we pass what he calls personal liberty bills, which were, as he claimed, in violation of the Constitution of the United States; and he said that the State of Ohio occupied the same position with the other free States in that particular. Well, sir, as he placed Ohj,s upon the same ground with the others, I have not taken pains to examine the action of the others, trusting that if there was no foundation under heaven for the eharge he made against Ohio, it was equally groundless against the other States. I say, then, to that Senator and the Senate, that the State of Ohio has never passed a law in violation of the Constitution of the United States; that it never has been derelict in its duty in this respect. Does any Senator here suppose that a sovereign State in this Union is going to relinquish all her right of protection over her citizens, because there is a provision of the Federal Constitution by which a certain class of individuals may be taken out of the State ? That would be to abandon every individual to the ruthless claim of any unprincipled man who sought to claim him. Cannot a sovereign State of this Union prevent the kidnapping of her free citizens, because you have a right to claim a slave fleeing from service? The Constitution of the United States does indeed say that the escaping fugitive shall be given up. But it does not prescribe how the fact that he owes service shall be ascertained; and the Constitution of the United States does not mean that any freeman of a State shall be given up as a fugitive. Now, I appeal to the candor of the Senator from Georgia. He has read with great care the proceedings of the Federal Constitutional Convention. He knows the jealousy concerning State rights that pervaded that body. Does he believe that its members would have ever consented to a provision which would have deprived the States of the power to protect and defend their own citizens ? No, sir, never. You are continually repeating the assertion that this fugitive slave law provision was deemed an important one by the fathers, and that the Union could not have been effected without it. On the contrary, sir, it was a mere afterthought. The Constitution was complete, in all its important provisions, before any man thought of this thing. It was put into the Constitution with very little deliberation; and those who put it there had no idea that, in doing so, they were taking away from the Spates the most important element of sovereignty namely, their power to protect their own citizens against unlawful seizures and searches and extradition. The rights of the States, the only protection made against overpowering and concentrated despotism, were the one especial ob8 > ject of preservation. The States battled int ; by inch against the surrender of any Stai power. I judge, therefore, that they never ii tended to confer upon Congress, or upon an one State, or anybody, a right to enter anoth? sovereign State, and take away, in a summar and arbitrary manner, whomsoever he shoul choose„ to claim as a fugitive from anothe State. But the Senator said that the free States and Ohio among the rest, have committed e kind of perjury in disregarding your fugitive law, by passing personal liberty bills. So fai as the law of Ohio is concerned, we shall see how plain a tale will put down his argument. Her law consists of three sections. The saving clause of the last section prevents any such construction as the Senator himself put upon the statute. It is entitled “ A law to prevent slaveholding and kidnapping in Ohio.” The last section declares: “ Nothing in the preceding sections of this ‘ act shall apply to any act done by any person 1 under the authority of the Constitution of the ‘ United States, or of any law of the United ‘ States made in pursuance thereof.” Now, I ask the Senator from Georgia, if he was upon the bench, and a fugitive from labor or service in another State was brought before him, under the provisions of this law, would he find any difficulty in surrendering him into the hands of the person who had made out his claim to his service ? Would he say that the preceding section of this law overruled this explanatory clause, and that he was bound, at all events, to trample the Constitution under foot ? No, sir; he would give it no such construction as that. Mr. President, I say in all sincerity and earnestness to everyman who holds to the conservation of State rights, that you endanger the rights of your own State, you endanger the liberties of this whole nation, when you contend against the power of the States to pass laws protecting their own citizens from unlawful seizures and kidnapping. At all hazards, neither asperity of language, nor a frowning brow, nor violent denunciation, will ever induce the State of Ohio to forget what belongs to her sovereignty, what is due to her honor, and the- protection of her own citizens. She takes no prouder position on this subject than, I hope in God, every other State in the Union does. Then the Senator was wrong, he was uncandid, to stand forth and say that our constituents are perjured, that they are traitors, that they have violated the law of the land, when they had taken every precaution to award to the citizens of other States, holding a species of property that we utterly repudiate, all their rights. The State of Ohio sends no Senators here to denounce the sovereignties or people of other States; but when her rights are disputed or her honor assailed in this hi^h council, her ambassadors here would be unfaithful to their
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=