7 sional enactment upon that subject is in accordance with the constitution. Now does the statute we are considering conflict with those decisions ? as, without stopping at all to consider these authorities, or to bring forward counter authorities, we prefer to consider it in the light of the decision named. Certainly this statute does not conflict with the first point made in the Prigg case, not at all. That asserts the right of the owner to take his slave without compulsion. This statute only requires that if he attempts to take him by force, and remove him without taking him before the proper authority and proving his claim, then he shall suffer a penalty, severe, it is true, but can it be aught too much so ? It is a penalty for the attempt to subject a free man to slavery. Is it too much that he who attempts this enslaving shall himself be bound ? Does it conflict with the second point, or with the fugitive slave law ? No. It does not in any way interfere with or prevent the exercise of the right on the part of the owner when he attempts to recover his slave without the exercise of force. But the fugitive slave law having been passed requiring certain steps to be taken by the claimant, this law is passed imposing a penalty upon that person who comes in the State and attempts forcibly to remove any of its people without first having complied with the provisions of that law. It is placed upon the statute neither in aid, nor in opposition to the law of the United States for the rendition of fugitives from service, but is a State law, passed for the protection of the people of that State. In so doing it imposes a penalty for the breach of its provisions, those provisions copied from, and made to correspond almost precisely with those of the other. Can it then be unconstitutional? But we are urged to this repeal, as we have been to the defeat and passage of other measures, because the times and condition of the country demand it. But this can be no reason, as before intimated, if there be aught in the provisions of this statute wrong, or in interference with the constitution, let it be repealed. If right, j ustice and a proper regard to the interests of the people of our own State demand the passage of measures like that now under consideration, then let them be enacted, otherwise not. The gentleman from Pickaway (Mr. McSciiooler) told us on yesterday that we must pass this and other kindred measures to conciliate our southern neighbors. Is this so ? Is aught that we have done, or may do, to accomplish anything in solving the uncertainty which hangs over us, and stay the tide of secession and disunion threatening entire destruction ? What care our southern neighbors for what we may do
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=