5 then in Congress vests the sole right, and to attempt aiding her in the exercise of that right is simply a work of superer- rogation. Meddling with that with which we have no right, and for which we receive no thanks. What is the object of thus going down and seeking for something we can volunteer to do? Is it to appease the wrath and heal the wounded pride of our southern neighbors? If they be really the heroes they are represented to be, the high-minded, honorable gentlemen, with right all on their side, (as we were told by a distinguished ex-Judge, in a speech in this city a short time since, and as has been pretty strongly intimated in this discussion,) they will despise all mean sycophancy, and spurn with contempt all degradation and self-abasement. As, in continuing this discussion, I purpose to follow the example of those who have preceded me, not confining myself solely to the provisions of the bill before us, but rather to speak generally to all relating to the same subject pending in the House, attention is, for a few moments, called to the report of the standing committee on the Judiciary upon the bill introduced by the gentleman from Licking (Mr. Woods), to repeal the second section of the act passed April 17, 1857, “to prevent kidnapping.” What are the provisions of that section ? It reads as follows: “ That no person or persons shall kidnap, or forcibly, or fraudulently carry off or decoy, out of this State, any black or- mulatto person or persons, within this State, claimed as fugitives from service or labor, or shall attempt to kidnap, or forcibly, or fraudulently carry off or decoy out of this State any such black or mulatto person or persons, without first having taken such black or mulatto person or persons before the court, judge, or commissioner of the proper circuit, district or county having jurisdiction according to the laws of the United States in cases of persons held to service or labor in any State, escaping into this State, and there, according to the laws of the United States, establishing by proof his or their property in such person.” Is there aught in this section to which any person can object? Aught more stringent or effective than Ohio—than any free—than any State should have upon her statutes for the protection of the free people of the State ? Aught that patriotism, philanthropy, Christianity, right, justice, and freedom, can object to ? Aught that fidelity to the constitution and comity with our sister States will conflict with ? It seems to me not. Then why repeal it? We are told that it is unconstitutional, and interferes with the enforcement of the laws of the United States. If so, if this or any other law be un
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=