-.V- <>', 
 
 .0 
 
 .0 
 
 
 
 <^ ' ^' " ■' - . ^ 
 
 ^' 
 
 .0 
 
 ^ '^•, '^H^ . 
 
 
 
 K^ 
 
 -^ o. 
 
 = « o ^* ,^^' 
 
 V 
 
 \^ 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 v^o^ 
 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 4 o 
 
 ^^-^^^ -j 
 
 v- 
 
 > 
 
 V 
 
 \^ 
 
 -^ 
 o. 
 
 .^ 
 
 > 
 
 ^ vy 5 • • , 
 
 ^* . 
 
 pyr?.5b, ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 v<. 
 
 -^^ 
 
 ^-f 
 
 
 ^"-^^^ 
 
 ,40, 
 
 ■J v. 
 
 .0' 
 
 ^P> • o « ^ <s^ 
 
 
 <- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■J ■ 
 
 - - . 'SI' >>* 
 
 
 V 
 
 .^^ *\ 
 
 <^. 
 
 ^oV" 
 
 
 ^°--^. 
 
 ^P b 
 
 '4 
 
 
 , -P 
 
 "^- 0^ 
 
o ^J^. C> 
 
 f. 
 
 c 
 
 .><^- 
 .v^. 
 
 
 13 '^ '^ ^^> 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 0^ 
 
 o " ° * 'O 
 
 
 .^ oV"==^^\!l^"^ ^^v.-^^ ^' : '^^^^ '>'- <-^ ^^^' 
 
 C° /' ''^ °o ./ , 
 
 '^0' 
 
 
 > 
 
 -\ o 
 
 
 ** r::c.-, ^-P^ c°' .'J4^>/°o >- ..r^% "-t 
 
 O « G 
 
 
 
 >0 
 
 -^^0^ 
 
 
 
 0' 
 
 4 o 
 
 V-^' 
 
 ^^-i- 
 
 
 .3'^"-. 
 
 .;^ ^^'-^i#^^^'^ 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 .3^^"^. 
 
 ."Jv 
 
 \ 
 
 <^. 
 
 . . . ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 <S^\\[1 
 
 
 
 ,V 
 
 ■/ 
 
 
C K^'^^. L— 
 
 O/v 
 
 II 
 
 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY 
 
 of 
 
 SLAYEBY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 
 BY A NATIVE OF MARYLAND. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY JNO. T. TOWERS 
 1851. 
 
be virtues, and operate as vices ; that every society must conform to its circumstances ; 
 that tliis is iis law, and not the abstract rights of humanity in any imaginary state of 
 nature. 
 
 We are, at times, filled with amazement when we reflect upon the blind fury with 
 which some, or the thoughtless alacrity with which others, have rushed into difficulties 
 of such sombre aspect, so full of dark and treacherous mazes. That boisterous multi- 
 tude, and ilidse designing demagogues who have led the more scrupulous and moderate 
 of our population into this fatal course of disunion doctrines, will be among the last, 
 neither capab e nor willing, to afloid them consolation and support when the extent of the 
 mischiel begins to develope itsrlf, and the tide of popular resentment to set inesistably 
 against its ainhorsr. Truiy, the leading men of the several States, the householders, the 
 fathers oi families, the well-meaning chri.stians of the land, undertake an awful respon- 
 sibility betore I lie tribunal of God and of the woi-ld, when they sanction the proceedings 
 of the agitators and seceders, animated by such passions, aiming at such objects as we 
 have described, in a proceeding that threatens to make " au etermil rent and schism" 
 in the American empire ; to bb.-t entirely our present tranquil and smiling lot ; to con- 
 vert the piesent rich and honorable inheritance of our children into one of desolation ; 
 to reduce them under a yoke of the basest servitude ; to alienate from us the esteem and 
 the good will of all nations; forever and irreproachably to tarnish the American name. 
 
 They must be worse than blind who do not see all these results in a disunion com- 
 menced ander auspices, than which none more deplorable can be imagined within the 
 limits of human misfortune and error. 
 
 We enter upon this state of things as a divided people. This it is impossible to con- 
 ceal or deny. The inflammatory addresses, emanating from ill-designing demagogues, 
 show it ; tlie ominous voice of indignation and alarm resounding from the Atlantic to 
 the Pacific, show it ; the votes in Congress on the Compromise Bills, show it. The di- 
 vision is precisely of that nature from which, unless speedily arrested, a dissolution of 
 the Union inust result. It is between the two great dissimilar sections of the Confede- 
 racy. It is on account of primary fundamental interests. It is, on one side, exaspera- 
 ted to the utmost by the darkest insinuations. It is connected with, and naturally in- 
 flames, passions and prejudices of a kind the most inveterate and dissociable, and which, 
 if not allayed, nothing short of open rupture can sati.sfy. The true and only tenacious 
 ties of ihe Confederacy are mutual conjidence and interest, mutual esteem and regard, 
 equal protection and equal burdens. When these are dissevered, when the bond which 
 originally induced and can only preserve the unity of our nation is disrupted, the co- 
 hesion is at an end, and it is in vain to expect that the disjointed parts of the great 
 fabric can be long kept together by engagements or punishments, or metaphysical sub- 
 tleties, or impotent menaces. 
 
 The AmeiicTin Union has, indeed, survived many rude shocks already, but we mnst 
 not forget that this good fortune has nd been achieved by a supine folding of hands and 
 sitting still in the hour of danger. No ; it has been the result of constant vigilance and 
 discreet foresight. The Union has survived, because the wise and prudent stepped for- 
 ward in critical periods, and men were guided by councils of prudence and wisdom. It 
 survived by the timely and judicious application of remedies to evils— not by the per- 
 verse blindness and wilful obstinacy that will see no danger till too late, but cry " peace, 
 peace, when there is no p-'ace." 
 
 It was easy to understand that the hostile feelings that now so unfortunately convulse 
 different sections of the Confederacy might be temporary, but at the same time it was 
 to be recollected that the occurrence ot this temporary estrangement of feeling at a 
 moment when a general spirit of discontent is pervadins; the country, under the influence 
 of conflicting views, which are so seriously felt— it was not unnatural that antagonistical 
 animosities, under more favorable circumstances, might grow into a permanent system. 
 We have only to look at the discussions of the newspapers to be satisfii-d that the ex- 
 citement is not circumscribed. In order to arrive at the true complexion of our situation, 
 we must sep fully the amount and extent of the discontent that now di^turh.s the peace 
 and quiet of the country. The more accurately we canvassed it, the more we should 
 be convinced that it was of universal description— that it was not general, but search- 
 ing—that there was not one filinient or fibre, we mit;ht say, in the whole system of our 
 confed.-rated Government, that did not feel its deadening influence, and was actually 
 inert in the exercise of its functions. 
 
 'Ihe oruanizntion of the General and State (Tovernments exiiibits the most remarka- 
 ble combination of checks and balances, of individual and Siate security, ever known. 
 The General Government, as it regards the nation, has a sovereign and controlling power 
 over the thirty State Governments, while each of these, independent and sovereign for 
 
all local and State purposes, depends on and is connected with the General Government 
 by the strong attraction of its national interests. The General Government, like the 
 sun in the solar system, is the centre of attraction and the bond of union ; and its pro- 
 visions for the common defence and general welfare, like the rays of the sun, give life 
 and activity to the nation. As the planets in their revolutions around the sun have their 
 distmct spherts of aciion and control, so the States separately possess complete sove- 
 reignty, each within its own jurisdiction and limits, extending to its citizens protection 
 to life, liberty, and property. How much it is to be lamented, that a system so beautiful 
 in theory, and so beneficial in practice, shall be disturbed by that firm, fa/iaiical spirit, 
 that prince of the power of the air, who can invade every sphere ; that demon who can 
 pass the bounds of every State ; and, by sowing discord and division, destroy the harmony 
 of the system, overturn the most valuable institutions, and endanger the union of thia 
 Republic. 
 
 The question cf slavery is one, in all its bearings, of extreme delicacy, and concerning 
 which we know of but a single wise and safe rule, either for the States in which it 
 exists, or for the Union. It must be considered and treated entirely as a d'jmestic ques- 
 tion. With respect to foreign nations, the language of the United States ought to be, 
 that it concerns the peace of our own political family, and, therefore, we caimot permit 
 it to be touched ; and in respect to the slaveholding States, the only safe i.nd constitu- 
 tional ground on which they can stand is, that they will not permit it to be brought in 
 question either by their sister States or by the Federal Government. It is a matter be- 
 longing exclusively to the slaveholding States. To touch it at all is to violate their most 
 sacred rights — to put in jeopardy their dearest interes.s, the peace of our country, the 
 safety of their families, their altars, and their firesides. 
 
 Slavery, either in its most obsolute or more qualified form, as it existed in ancient 
 times and among other nations, or in modern times in our own, is too well und'^stood 
 to define it ; nor shall we enter upon any elaborate disquisition as to its origin, its history, 
 its abuse, or the principles upon which it is justified. Our duty will be to inquire only 
 whether it has had a legal existence. 
 
 Property is the creature of the law ; whetherof the natural or social law, is not mate- 
 rial now to be ascertained. Its enjoyment, therefore, may be modified by law. We will 
 not argue, as an abstract question, whether slaves are property. Powers tar superior 
 to ours in arsument would only shake the firm foundation upon which this right is 
 based, by attempting to fortify it. We will only refer, as matter of history, to several emi- 
 nent instances in which it has been clearly recognised by Federal auihorily. The 
 legislative records of the several Slates, from the earliest period to which we can refer, 
 prior to the Revolution, as well as subsequent to that event, prove that not only slavery 
 existed and was tolerated, but that it was recognised and treated as a legal instiiution. 
 The master's claim of property in his slave, his power and authority over him, to limit and 
 restrain, to sell and transfer him to another, have been, by repeated acts both of the Colo- 
 nial and State governments, again and again recognised, protected, defined, and regulated. 
 
 Slavery was introduced among us during our colonial state, against the solemn re- 
 monstrance of our legislative assemblies. Frte America did noi introduce it. The 
 Revolution which made us an independent nation found slavery existing amoi^g us. Jt 
 is a calamity entailed upon us by the commercial policy of the parent country. [See Har- 
 grave's Argument, in Somersett's case, 11 State Tria s, 34G.] 
 
 If it be one of those great and moral precepts and injunctions, which is discoverable 
 by the light of reason, that no man may make his fellow-being his slave, it is one of 
 those precepts, or injunctions, which every man and every community have interpreted 
 and applied for themselves Whatever the precept may be, by whomsoever and where- 
 soever pronounced, it has always enciuntered the fact, that mdukind have always been 
 divided into masters and slaves. Whatever changes the world and society have under- 
 gone in other respects, thus far it has undergone none in this, excepting in some few 
 communities, where slavery has ceased. 
 
 The right of life over a captured enemy was gradually ameliorated into a right unto 
 the services, hibor, and obedience of the captive. We read of Andromache, in the Iliad, 
 bitterly bewailing her anticipated slavery ; and in the Odyssey, the Phcenecians are de- 
 scribed as robbers and kidnappers of human flesh. 
 
 The monumentsof Africa, which have survived all iiistory and tradition, prove nothing 
 so distinctly as their own antiquity, and that they were raised by the toil ot slaves. 
 
 The same distinction is found among Jews and Gentiles ; among Greeks and bar- 
 barians ; among Romans and strangers. The Romans, the Greeks, and other nations 
 of antiquity, held slaves at the time Christianity first dawned on society, and the profes- 
 sors of its mild doctrines never preached against it. 
 
6 
 
 In the Romnn Republic, the practice of predial and domestic slavery was countenanced. 
 There were instances of private persons owning singly no less tlian four thousand slaves. 
 [1 Gibbon's History, p. 66, G7.] 
 
 Hume, in his Kssay on the Populousness of Ancient Nations, says that some great 
 men amony ihe Romans possessed the number of ten thousand slaves. Mr. Blair, in 
 his Inquiry into the state of Slavery among the Romans, (1^33,) assigns as many as 
 three slaves to every free person in Italy, in the time of the Emperor Claudius. Almost 
 all the agricultural as well as domestic labor, was performed by slaves, even from the 
 time of Tdieruis [Plutarch's life of T. Gracchus. Hawke's Roman History, b. l,ch. 7.] 
 Barbarian captives, taken in war, were considered slaves, and purchased by slave mer- 
 chants for Italy. 
 
 But if the Abolit.oiiists are guided by that evidence upon which the Christian system 
 is founded, they will find that religion is not against it. Th^y will see, from Genesis to 
 Revelations, the current setting stron,i;ly that way. There never was a government on 
 the face of the earth but what permitted slavery. The purest sons of freedom in the 
 Grecian Republics, the citizens of Athens and Lacedaemon, all held slaves. On this 
 principle the nations of Europe are associated ; it is the basis of the feudal system. 
 
 The Carthagenians are known to have had black slaves ; and it seerns equally certain 
 that the Greeks and Romans had numbers of them ; but modern Europe was scarcely 
 acquainted with the existence of the negro race, when (as Anderson tells us in his His- 
 tory of Commerce) the Portuguese, under the reign of the Infant Don Henry, about the 
 year 1443, under a commander natned Alonzo Gonzales, began to transport the natives 
 of Guinea, in order to sell them to the Spaniards. The trade being lucrative, companies 
 were formed a' Lagos to carry it on from Senegal and from Cape de ^^erde. Orliz di 
 Zuniga, the historian of Seville, about thirty years later, relates that the Spaniards, who 
 had been accustomed to obtain slaves by the intervention of the Portuguese, began in his 
 time to carry on the trade direct from the pons of Andalusia to the coast of Guinea. 
 The number of slaves in the city of Seville at that time was very considerable. The 
 slavery of the blacks seems, frcm the time we are now speaking, to have followed the 
 transplantation of the sugar cane, which has been cultivated successively in Spain, in 
 the Madeiras, in the Western Isles, in the Canaries, and lastly in the American Archi- 
 pelago, and on some parts of the Continent. 
 
 Slaveiy ceased in Europe towards the middle of the thirteenth century, but from what 
 operative causes it is not necessary to examine ; but, unquestionably, not from any new 
 discovery that slavery was forbidden by any law, human or divine. If there had been 
 any positive prohibition by any law, by whatever name it maybe distinguished, this law- 
 would have appeared, and would have been found in practice, at some time before the 
 beginning of the fourteenth century. 
 
 Modern slavery began on Portuguese capital, protected and encouraged by royal au- 
 thority. 
 
 In England, now so distinguished in the aholition, no question of the legality of hold- 
 ing slaves appears to have been raised ; hut every possible proof is foutul thut it was 
 considered as on the siime footing as any commerce. Between tiic years 1G18 and 
 1672, there were no less than four chartered companies to deal in slaves, the last of 
 which was dignifitd with the name of the Royal African Company, and had among its 
 subscribers the King of England, his royal brotiier, and inany persi>ns of high rank and 
 quality, and was founded on a capital of ^eilO.OOO. As late as 1750, ati act was passed 
 by the English Parliament for extending and improving the trade to Africa. 
 
 All nations were eager to seize the opportunity of deriving profit fro'ii a traffic (as late 
 as in the year 1783) even as.serted upon the floor of Parliament " to he necessary, in a 
 commercial view, to all commercial nations ;" and which was not then considered by 
 any nation as inconsistent with the rights of humanity or the laws of nations. The con- 
 tract of the Assientn, which was obtained by England for a limited time, under the I2th 
 article of the treaty of Utrecht, was a legitimate source of wealth and prosperity to her, 
 and afl()rded a special encouragement to her maritime enterprise, which must ever be 
 considered a political object by her statesmen. 
 
 In the year l()8y, England made a regular convention with Spain for supplying the 
 Spanish West Indies with negro slaves from the island of Jamaica. The twelfth article 
 of the treaty of Utrecht, (1713,) grants to her Britannic Majesty, and to the company of 
 her subjects appointed for that purpose (the South Sea Company) — as well the subjects 
 of Spain as all others being excluded — the contract for introducing negroes into several 
 parts of the dominions of his Catholic Majesty in America, (conmionly cill^d El pacta 
 de el Assienio de Negros,) at the rate of 4,000 negroes annual'y, for the space of thirty 
 years successively. 
 
To this compact there have been two pointed references in the British Parliament. 
 "By the treaty of Utrecht," said Mr. Brougham, (June 16, 1812,) "what the execrations 
 of ages have left inadequately censured, Great Britain was content to obtain, as the whole 
 price of Ramuielles and Blenheim, an additional share of the accursed slave trade." 
 
 Among the Germans slavery was recognised as one of the principles of national law. 
 [WoU de'Nat. Rel. 201. MoUoy de Marit Lib. 3, cap. 1] In the rude outline of the 
 feudal system, with all its modifications of villeinage and under-servitude.may be clearly 
 deduced the general practice of slavery in the north of Europe. Egypt, Carthage, Sicily, 
 and every nation of antiquity have deeply incorporated in their social systems the insti- 
 tution of slavery. 
 
 In a case of great importance, on an appeal to the High Court of Admiralty, the whole 
 doctrine of slavery was reviewed, and the following strong and marked language was 
 used by Sir William Scott, in delivering the judgment of the court: 
 
 " Let me not be misunderstood or misrepresented as a professed apologist for the prac- 
 tice, when I sfate facts which no man can deny, that personal slavery, arising out of 
 forcible captivity, is coeval with the earliest history of mankind ; that it is found existing 
 (and, so far as it appears, without animadversion) in the earliest and most autheiilic 
 records of the human race, and was recognised by the laws of the most polished nation 
 of antiquity ; that under the light of Christianity itself, the possession of persons, so ac- 
 quired, has been, in every civilized country, invested with the character of property, and 
 secured as such by all the protection of laws ; that solemn treaties have been formed and 
 national monopolies eagerly sought to facilitate and extend the commerce of this asserted 
 property ; and all this with the sanction of law, public and municipal, and without any 
 opposition." 
 
 It is matter of notorious history, that both in ancient and modern Europe the condition 
 of slavery and commerce in slaves were sanctioned by the universal practice and law of 
 nations. [See Hallam's Middle Ages, vol. iv, p. 221 ; Gibbon's Decline and Fall, vol. i, 
 p. 63.] The very definition of slavery in the civil law, which has been copied by writers 
 on public law, shows that it was an institution established by private law, against the 
 law of nature. Servitus est consti'utio juris gentium, qua quis dominio alieno contra 
 naturam subjicitur. [See Domat. Loix. civ. Prel. tit. 2, sec. 3 ] 
 
 In 1689, all the judges in England, with the eminent men who then filled the offices 
 of nttorney and solicitor-general, concurred in opinion that negroes were "merchandise," 
 within the general laws of the navigation act. [See Chalmer's Opinion of Eminent Law- 
 yers, 263.] r. J J 
 
 The first case relating to the African slave trade is that of Butts vs. Penn,determmed 
 in the 29th of Charles IL, being trover for negroes. The special verdict found that they 
 were usually bought and sold in India. [See 2 Keeble, 785 ; 2 Lev.,201.] In a subse- 
 quent case, trovel- was brought for a negro in England. Holt, C. J., said, that trespass 
 was the kind of action, but that trover would lie, " if the sale was in Virginia." Other 
 cases bear upon questions as to the form of action, but they all concur in establishing the 
 right of this species of property. [See 2 Salk, 666 ; 1 Lord Raym, 146 ; 5 Mod. Rep. 
 
 1^5.] ^ , J . I. 
 
 In connexion with this question of personal property it may be remarked that the 
 ancient law of England made the villein or English slave inheritable estate, and passed 
 him like the land ; that the laws of all the British West India islands in 1782 contem- 
 plated the negroes as real estate ; that the French colonial laws considered them, in 
 several important particulars, like immovable property ; that the ancient Romans held 
 them to be hke lands ; that the prescriptive laws of nations, as established by the prac- 
 tice of Great Britain, France, Spain, &c., restored and delivered them up, after war, as and 
 with real estate, not only in capitulating islands conqiered from each other, but even, as 
 in the Grenada and the Grenaders, in islands conquered unconditionally, or xoithout 
 
 capitulation. , r i. • .• r 
 
 We found slavery engrafted in the very policy of the country before the organization ol 
 the Government, and we are persuaded of the impolicy of rashly interfering with it ; if it be 
 a moral evil, it is like many others which exist in all civilized countries, and which the 
 world quietly submits to. Humanity has been a topic of declamation on this subject; 
 that sentiment has difierent operations on different individuals. It was humanity that 
 first gave origin to the transportation of slaves from Africa to America. Bartholomew 
 de las Casas, Bishop of Chiapa, a Spaniard renowned for his humanity and virtues, in 
 order to save the Indians in South America from slavery, prevailed on his monarch to 
 substitute Africans, which were accordingly purchased and shipped to the Spanish colo- 
 nies to work in the mines. [See Robertson's History of America ; see, also, Don Onis, 
 
8 
 
 the Spanish Ambassador, letter to Mr. Adams, Secretary of State, 14th May, 1818.] 
 " The introduction of negro slaves into America was one of the earliest measures adopted 
 for the improvement and prosperity of these vast dominions." [Bancroft's History of the 
 United States, vol. l,pp. 182, 183.] The Spaniards and Portuguese dealt in the traffic of 
 African negroes, as slaves, even before the discovery of America. [lb., v. l.pp 178,179.] 
 
 In the history of the relations of Great Britain with the American colonies, there is 
 no circumstance more demonstrable than her steady determination to maintain the slave 
 trade in the greatest activity and extent, whatever miijht be their feelings of disgust and 
 apprehension, and however gloomy the aspect which the continuation gave to the colo- 
 nies. Their permanent welfare, their immediate comfort, were not considered, when 
 brought in competition with the prosperity of the Royal African Company. 
 
 Slavery, as it now exists in the United States, can never be made a matter of 
 reproach to the existing Government, or the present generation. It was an evil intro- 
 duced into the colonies by the parent State, and acquiesced in to a great degree by the 
 colonies themselves, in an age when the traffic in slaves was pursued by ail nations 
 without a suspicion of its enormity. 
 
 The Northern colonies participated in it equally with the Southern, and the navigation 
 of the New England ports was employed continually on the African coast in the trans- 
 portation of slaves to the different American markets, and by means of American capi- 
 tal. There can be no reproach, therefore, cast upon the South for the introduction of 
 this evil which, we conceive, will not equally attach to the North and to the English 
 nation. We were all equally disposed to embark in the traffic, and avail ourselves of 
 its proceeds ; and the guilt, if any there be, must be shared in an equal degree by the 
 parties concerned. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Slaves recognised as Property hy the old Congress, before the 
 Declaration of Independence. 
 
 The Declaration of Independence, the basis of our free government, declares that all 
 men are created free and equal ; and the Constitution of the United States proclaims 
 that the people formed a system to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their 
 posterity ; yet, by express language of the latter instrument, the relation of slave and 
 master is recognised ; showing that the frainers of the Constitution did not deem this 
 general declaration in favor of liberty incompatible with its other provisions ; and it 
 has never been judicially determined that slavery in the United States was thereby 
 abrogated. On the contrary, it has often been adjudged, both by State and Federal 
 Courts, that slavery still exists ; that the master's right of property in the slave has not 
 been affected either by the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of tht^ United 
 States. The right to seize and capture, transport to this country, sell and subject to 
 bondage the native African was not only tolerated, but adjudged lawful long after the 
 adoption of the Constitution, and was only abolished by special act of Congress. 
 
 Journal of the Continental Congress, October 20, 1774. 
 
 NON-I.MPORTATIO.V COVENANT. 
 
 "Article 2. We will neither import nor purchase any slave imported after the first 
 day of December next ; after which time we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, 
 and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels nor sell our 
 cominodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it. 
 
 " The foregoing association being determined ui)on by the Congress, was ordered to be 
 subscribed by the several members thereof; and, thereupon, we have hereunto set our 
 respective names accordingly. 
 
 " In Congress, Philadelphia, October 24. 
 
 " Signed. PEYTON RANDOLPH, President. 
 
 " New Hampshire. — John Sullivan, Nathaniel Folsum. 
 
 " Massachusetts Bay. — Thomas Gushing, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert 
 Treat Paine. 
 
 " Rhode Islnnd. — Stephen Hopkins, Samuel Ward. 
 
 " Connecticut. — Eliphalet Dyer, Roger Sherman, Silas Deane. 
 
9 
 
 " New York. — Isaac Lowe, John Alsop, James iDuane, William Floyd, Henry Wisher, 
 S. Boerman, Philip Livingston. 
 
 " New Jersey. — James Kinsey, William Livingston, Stephen Crane, Richard Smith, 
 John De Hart. 
 
 " Pennsylvania. — Joseph Galloway, John Dickinson, Charles Humphries, Thomas 
 Mifflin, Kdward Riddle, John Merton, George Ross. 
 
 "New Castle, Del. — Csesar Rodney, Thomas McKean, George Read. 
 
 " Maryland. — Milton Tilghman, Thomas Johnson, William Pica, Samuel Chase. 
 
 " Virginia. — Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, Patrick Henry, jr., Richard 
 Blair, Benjamin Harrison, Edmund Pendlt-ton. 
 
 " North Carolina. — William Hooper, Joseph Hughes, R. Caswell. 
 
 " South Carolina. — Henry Middleton, Thomas Lynch, Christopher Gadsden, John 
 Rutledge, Edward Rutledge." [See Journal of the Provincial Congress, p. 736.] 
 
 In looking over the Secret Journal of Domestic Affairs of the Continental Congress, 
 a report and resolutions will be found which will be perfectly conclusive upon this ques- 
 tion. The report was made on the 29th of March, 1779. It will be recollected that 
 during the war of the Revolution the British enlisted slaves as troops, and that the 
 period already referred to was one of great gloom and despondency in the South ; and 
 then, if ever, as the enemy were enlisting the slaves of the southern planters, the Con- 
 tinental Congress might have found strong arguments for combating them with the same 
 species of force, especially as by refraining from doing so the slaves were not only lost 
 to the owner, but were added to the military force of the enemy. The proceedings of 
 Congress on this occasion display that combination of wisdom and prudence for which 
 that body was so justly distinguished. The report states that the delegation of South Caro- 
 lina in Congress had represented the distressed state of the country, the desertion of 
 the negroes to the enemy, and that those who still remained were exposed to their arti- 
 fices and temptations; that if they were embodied, this desertion might be prevented, 
 and they might be rendered formidable to the enemy, &c. Whereupon, "Resolved, That 
 it be recommended to the States of South Carolina and Georgia, if they shall think the 
 same expedient, to take measures" for raising a force of this description. By another 
 resolution it was declared " that Congress will make provision for the proprietors of such 
 negroes, &c., a full compensation for the property," &,c. &c. [See Secret Journal, pages 
 107-8.] This recommendation of Congress was not adopted. It is not at all material 
 to the purpose for which we have quoted the Journal to ascertain that fact. The report 
 and resolutions show conclusively the sense of the Continental Congress, that the slaves 
 were not to be employed without the consent of the local authorities ; and, if employed 
 with that consent, that the owners were to receive full compensation for the property — 
 thus recognising the principle that slaves were considered as property. 
 
 The old Congress, of 1782, expressly sanctioned the right of slavery when they pass- 
 ed the following resolutions: 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of Foreign Affairs be and he is hereby directed to ob- 
 tain, as speedily as possible, authentic returns of the slaves and other property which 
 have been carried off or destroyed in the time of the war by the enemy, and transmit 
 the same to the Minister Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace. 
 
 Resolved, That in the mean time the Secretary for Foreign Affairs inform the said 
 Minister that many thousands of slaves and other property to a very great amount, have 
 been carried off or destroyed by the enemy ; and that, in the opinion of Congress, the 
 great loss of property which the citizens of the United Slates have sustained by the 
 enemy, will be considered by the several States as an insuperable bar to their making 
 restitution or indemnification to the former owners of property, what has been or may 
 be forfeited, or confiscated, by many of the States. [See 1 vol. State Papers, page 333.] 
 
 On the 26th May, 1783, the following preamble and resolution were carried without 
 a division : 
 
 " On motion of Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Izard. — Whereas, by the articles 
 agreed upon on the 30ih of November last, by and between the Commissioners of the 
 United States of America for making peace, and Commissioners on the part of his Bri- 
 tannic Majesty, it is stipulated that his Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient 
 speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any negroes or other pro- 
 perty of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from 
 the said United States, and from every port, place, and harbor within the same ; and 
 whereas, a considerable number of negroes belonging to citizens of these States have 
 been carried off therefrom, contiary to the true intent and meaning of the said articles: 
 
10 
 
 " Eesohed, That the copies of the letters between the commander-in-chief, Sir Guy 
 Carieton, and other papers on this subject, be transmitted to the Ministers Plenipoten- 
 tiary of these States for negotiating peace in Europe ; and that they be directed to re- 
 monstrate thereon to the court of Great Britain, and take proper measures for obtaining 
 such reparation, as the nature of the case will admit. 
 
 "Ordered, that a copy of the foregoing resolve be transmitted to the coinmander-in- 
 chief ; and that he be directed to continue his remonstrances to Sir Guy Carieton, re- 
 specting the permitting negroes belonging to the citizens of tliese States to leave New 
 York, and to insist on the discontinuance of that measure." 
 
 Again, on the 9lh of August, 1783, Congress resolved that the Secretary for Foreign 
 Affairs cause to be made out separate lists of the number, names, and owners of the ne- 
 groes belonging to citizens of each Stale, and carried away by the British, in contra- 
 vention of the treaty, and that he transmit the said lists to the Executives of the Slates 
 to which they respectively belong. 
 
 Pursuing these historical illustrations, we find in the British Treaty of 1783, which 
 closed the war of Independence, that provision is made, by the ninth article, against the 
 destruction or carrying away of any negroes. 
 
 By a resolve of the 15ih April, 1783, the commander-in-chief was instructed to make 
 arrangements with the British commander for receiving possession of the ports held by 
 the Brit sh troops in the United States, and for obtaining the delivery of all negroes and 
 other property which by the treaty were to be given up. 
 
 The old Congress sanctioned the right of slavery when they commissioned agents 
 "to obtain the delivery of all negroes and other property of the inhabitants of the United 
 States in the possession of the British forces, or any subjects of, or adherents to, his Bri- 
 tannic Majesty." [See 1 Vol. State Papers, page 221.] 
 
 General Washington demanded restitution of the slaves in the possession of the 
 British forces. A letter from him dated 7th day of May, 1783, says: " That, in obedi- 
 ence to a resolution of Congiess, he had a conference with General Carieton on the sub- 
 ject of delivering up the slaves and other property belonging to the citizens of the United 
 States, in compliance with the articles of the provincial treaty ; that he (General Carle- 
 ton) appeared to evade a compliance with the said treaty by a misconstruction of the 
 same, and permitted a large number of the said slaves to be sent off to Nova Scotia." 
 
 The opinions and convictions of General Washington, on this pomt, were, that the carry- 
 ing away the negroes, as it was done, was an infraction cf the treaty. His correspondence 
 with Congress, and with the British commanders, and his instructions to Mr. Benson, 
 Lieutenant ColDiiel Smith, and Mr. Parker, the American Commissioners, all go to show 
 that he demanded the restitution of slaves. 
 
 Sir GuyCarlfton wascharged by General Washington with having violated the treaty, 
 in suffering the embarkation of the negroes ; and he acknowledged the truth of the charge, 
 by his precautions in ascertaining the number, and thereby gave an evident opinion that 
 restitution should be made for them. 
 
 E.xtraci from a letter of General Washington to Sir Guy Carieton : 
 
 ^ " Orangetown, May 6, 1783. 
 
 " I find it my duty to signify my readiness, in conjunction with your excellency, to 
 enter into any agiet^ment, or to take any measures, which may be deenied e.xpedient, to 
 prevent the future carrying away of any negroes, or other property of American inhabi- 
 tants." [See 3 Vol. Sparks' Writings of Washington.] 
 
 In the letter here mentioned. Sir Guy Carieton had requested that Congress would em- 
 power some persons to go into New York and superintend the embarkation of persons 
 and property, in fulfilment of the seventh article of the provincial treaty. [Diplomatic 
 Correspondence, Vol. XI., p. 325.] 
 
 Tliese Conunissioners, appointed by General Washington to superintend the embarka- 
 tion from New York, and see tiiat no American properly was carried away, at the close 
 of the business made report to him of their doings, when they say, " Sir (iuy Carieton 
 affected to distinguish between the cases of such negroes as came within the British lines 
 in consequence of the promises of freedom and indemnity, held out in the proclamatione 
 of his predecessor." 
 
 In a letter of Sir Guy Carieton, of May 12, he admits the violation, and palliates it by 
 Baying he had no right to deprive the negroes of that liberty he found them possessed of; 
 that it was unfriendly to suppose that the king's minister could stipulate to be guilty of a 
 notorious breach of faith towards the negro ; and that if it was his intention, itinust be 
 adjusted by compensation, restoration being utterly impracticable. 
 
11 
 
 " The negroes in question, I have already said, I found free when I arrived at New 
 York. I had, therefore, no right, as I thought, to prevent their going away to any part 
 of the world they thought proper." [See Sir Guy Carletoa's letter. State Papers, vol. ii, 
 p. 5.] 
 
 The Commissioners remonstrated with Sir Guy Carleton in regard to his determina- 
 tion " to carry away" the negroes, in violation of the treaty, and in a letter bearing date 
 June 19th, 1783, addressed to General Washington, they say," we conceive it is now 
 reduced to a certainty, that all applications for the delivery of the property will be fruit- 
 less, and we shall therefore desist from any further effort." 
 
 The American Commissioners were permitted to make a bill of the negroes in the 
 possession of the British at the close of the war, by the British commander; there were 
 resolutions of Congress claiming compensation for the property carried away in contra- 
 vention of that article in the treaty of peace ; during the administrition of Lord Car- 
 marthen, the claim for compensation for property carried awiy was admitted. 
 
 In the 7th article it was stipulated that his Britannic Majesty should withdraw his 
 armies, garrisons, and fleets, without carrying away any negroes or other property of the 
 American inhabitants. 
 
 The United States contended that the negroes remaining within the British lines after 
 the peace, but who, having been captured or invited by proclamation, had fled to the 
 British during the war, were the property of the inhabitants of the United States, and 
 should be delivered up, in virtue of the stipulation of the treaty of peace. The British 
 Government contended for another construction, and said that negroes captured in war, 
 or who, invited by proclamation, had taken refuge with them during the war, could not 
 be restored without a breach of public faith ; that the slaves, by coming within the British 
 jurisdiction, were by that fact emancipated. If Great Britain was justified in the mainte- 
 nance of that principle, that the moment the negroes came within the British jurisdiction 
 all American interest in them ceased, what justification can be offered for the members 
 of the old Congress for passing resolutions demanding the reclamation of slaves as 
 American property, when, in fact, they were no longer slaves, but were, to all intents 
 and purposes, /ceeme/j .^ The highest legal tribunal of Great Britain, eighty years ago, 
 declared that a slave could exist on the soil of the parent State. [Somersett's case, 20 
 Howell's State Trials, 70.] Following up and extending this view, the same Govern- 
 ment and the colonial authorities have made repeated declarations, " that they never 
 would surrender persons who had taken refuge under the British standard." In the case 
 of Forbes vs. Cochrane, 2 B. & C, 448, which was an action by a British subject 
 against Commander Cochrane for refusing to deliver up fugitive slaves, Holroyd, Jus- 
 tice, declared, in his opinion, that the moment a party gets out of the territory where 
 slavery prevails, and gets under the protection of another power, the right of the master, 
 which is founded on the municipal law of the place only, does not continue. Such is the 
 current of decisions of England with reference to slaves. And yet energetic measures 
 were adopted by the old Congress for the restoration of the property. 
 
 Mr. John Jay himself, when Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the year 1786, in a re- 
 port he then made to Congress on the subject, maintained that the carrying off of those 
 negroes was a violation of the treaty ; and said further that he understood from Mn 
 Adams, then at the Court of London, that the British Minister had no objections to 
 making compensation for them. 
 
 Our minister was instructed by Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State under General 
 Washington, to press upon the British Government the necessity of making indemnifi- 
 cation for the slaves deported in violation of the provisions of the treaty of 1783. Here 
 is the reply of Governeur Morris, which expressly recognises the principle of indemnity 
 for slave property : 
 
 Extract from a despatch of Governeur Morris, Minister to England, to George 
 Washington, President of the United States, dated 
 
 London, April 7, 1790. 
 
 " And here I took occasion to observe to the Duke of Leeds, Minister for Foreign 
 Affairs, that the Southern States, who had been much blamed in this country for ob- 
 structing the recovery of British debts, were not liable for all the severity of censure 
 which had been thrown upon them ; that these negroes had been taken or seduced 
 away, and the payment for these negroes having been stipulated by treaty, they had 
 formed a reliance on such payment for discharge of debts contracted with the British 
 merchants, both previously and subsequently to the war." [See 1 vol. American State 
 Papers, Foreign Relations, p. 122.] 
 
12 
 
 Private Journal of John Adams. 
 
 Extracts from Mr. Adams' Journal, Friday, November 29, 1782. 
 
 " Mr. Oswald, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, and Mr. Laurens, met at Mr. Jay's Hotel 
 d'Orleans. 
 
 " In the Convention he (Dr. Franklin) complained of the British forces : That he 
 stated thp carrying off of goods from Boston, Philadelphia, and the Carolinas, Geor- 
 gia, Virginia, (fee. 
 
 " I'pon this I (Mr. Adams) recounted the history of Gen. Gaee's agreement with the 
 inhabitants of Boston. Doctor Franklin mentioned the case of Phil.idelphia, and the 
 carryins; oti' effects, even his own library. Mr. Jay mentioned several other things, and 
 Mr. Laurens added the plunder in Carolina of negroes," &c. &c. [See 2d vol. State 
 Papers, page I'A.] 
 
 He further remarks, that before the signing of the treaties, " Mr. Laurens said, there 
 ought to be a stipulation that the British troops shall carry off no negroes or other 
 American property. We all agreed. Mr. Oswald consented, and then the treaties were 
 signed," &c., &c. 
 
 Again : " I was very happy Mr. Laurens come in, although it was the last day of the 
 conference, and wished he could have been sooner. His apprehension, notwithstanding 
 his deplorable aflliction under the recent loss of so e.xcellenj. a son, is as quick, his judg- 
 ment as sound, and his head as firm as ever. He had an opportunity of examining the 
 whole, and judging and oppusing ; and the article which he caused to be inserted at the 
 very last, that no properly should be carried off." [See Mr. Madison's speech on Jay's 
 Treaty, p. 70.] 
 
 3Ir. Burr's Motion. 
 
 Whilst the ratification treaty of 1794, commonly called Jay's Treaty, was under dis- 
 cussion in the Senate, the following proposition was brought forward, which ultimate- 
 ly prevailed : 
 
 " Art. G. That the value of the negroes and other property, carried away contrary 
 to the 7th article of the treaty of 1783, and the loss and damage sustained hy the Uni- 
 ted States hy the detention of the posts, be paid for by the British Government ; the 
 amount to be ascertained by the commissioners who may be appointed to liquidate the 
 claims of the British creditors." 
 
 This resolution has for its object further amicable negotiation for the value of the ne- 
 groes. It may be considered as the unanimous opinion of the Senate, that this claim 
 for negroes was not placed by the treaty of 1794 upon a just and satisfactory basis. 
 
 It ai)pears from the extracts and the minutes in Mr. Jefferson's " Papers relative to 
 Great Britain," which accompanied General Washington's message to Congress on the 
 5th of December, 1793, that the American Commissioners at Paris, in 1782, had held 
 up to the British Commissioners general claims for negroes carried away in the course 
 of the war. 
 
 Private Journal of Dr. Franklin. 
 
 Extract of a letter from Dr. Franklin to Richaid Oswald, Esquire: 
 
 Passey, November 2G, ] 782. 
 
 In this letter Dr. Franklin enclosed to Mr. Oswald the following, lobe incorporated in 
 the treaty of peace, stipulating compensation for the deported slaves: 
 
 It is agreed that His Britannic Majesty will earnestly recommend it to his Parliament 
 to provide for and make compensation to the merchants and sliopkeepers of Boston ; 
 their goods and merchandise were seized and taken out of the stores, warehouses, and 
 ships, by order of General (Jage, and others of his commanders or officers there ; also to 
 the inhabitants of Philadelphia for the goods taken away by the army there, and to make 
 compensation also for tobacco, rice, indigo, and slaves, &c. Sugar was carried off by 
 his armies under Generals .Arnold, Cornwallis, and others, from the States of Virginia, 
 North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. [See 2d vol. State Papers, p. 75.] 
 
 From several seaports, which had been occupied as ports by the British forces, the 
 American Commissioners represented to Mr. Oswald the British Commissioner, that a 
 portion of this country which owed money to Great Britain is in some degree incajjaci- 
 itated from paying their debts by the loss of the negroes which had already been taken 
 away ; and though he (Mr. Oswald) might be averse to admit the large losses of which 
 the negroes, previously removed, form a great part, he might naturally compromise the 
 claim by agreeing that the troops of his nation should depart without carrying away 
 " any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants." Thus we perceive tliat 
 
18 
 
 in this negotiation it was admitted by Mr. Oswald, the British Commissioner, and so de* 
 clared by Mr. Adams, Doctor Franklin, and Mr. Jay, that the slaves were considered 
 as property ; namely, those belonging to the inhabitants within the lines. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Slavery recognised by the Constitution^ 
 
 The whole nation sanctioned the right of slavery by adopting the Constitution, which 
 provides for an enumeration of slaves in a representation founded thereon, and lor th« 
 restoration of fugitive slaves to their masters, acknowledging the obligations of Slate 
 laws, which hold men to labor or service. 
 
 That the clause which provides for the delivery of fugitive slaves stands amongst the 
 most unequivocal indications of the wisdom of the fiamersof the Constitution, will be ap- 
 parent to every one who will reflect but for a single moment upon the vast comprehen- 
 siveness of their labors, and the peculiar circumstances under which they were performed. :, 
 
 Called together by an extraordinary and alarining emergency, and acting under the ■• 
 influence of the excited passions unavoidably incident to a cri.sis portending anarchy ! 
 and civil commotion, the Convention were under the necessity of framing the entire ■' 
 structure of a Government perfectly new in its principle, and destined in less than a 
 single century from the period of its organization to extend either its blessings or evils 
 to a more numerous body of human beings than were ever before associated under the 
 auspices of one General Government ! When, to this view of the great magnitude and ■ 
 increasing character of the objects and interests submitted to the consideration of the 
 Federal Convention, we superadd the consideration that they consisted of delegates Irom 
 thirteen independent sovereignties, having discordant interests and conflicting views to 
 harmonize, the great astonishment is, not that they failed to establish a perfect Constitu- 
 tion, but that they organized any system of government whatever. This Constitution 
 was the work of that illustrious body of patriots and statesmen, who seem to have been 
 raised up by Providence at that peculiarly eventful period, to guide by their eminent 
 wisdom and exalted public virtue the councils of that Convention ; the result of whose 
 deliberations w ere to fix the future destinies of this great empi' e of freedom. They were 
 originally highly gifted by nature and deeply versed in political knowledge. They had 
 been educated in the principles of civil liberty, and well understood the temper and ge- 
 nius of their country, its interests, and the spirit of its institutions. They justly consid- 
 ered that the Government which was then to be framed was to be adapted to an edu- 
 cated and enlightened country, and to be sustained by moral sentiment, and ttie political 
 virtue and justice of the People. 
 
 The pressure of public distress had purified the souls of men— the common dangers of 
 the Revolution had bound the country together as brethren of one family ; its sufferings 
 had taught them the value of liberty, the necessity of Union and mutual forbearance 
 with each other, and the preciousness of the inheritance which was to descend to us, 
 their children. 
 
 We cannot look back to the history of the times, when the august spectacle was ex- 
 hibited of the assemblage of a whole people, by their representatives in the Conventioii, 
 in order to unite thirteen independent sovereignties under one Government, so far as it 
 might be necessary for the purposes of the Union, without being sensible of the great 
 importance which was at that time attached to this provision. The mischief had become 
 80 great, so tlarming, as not only to impair intercourse between different sections of the 
 country, but to threaten the existence of the articles of the confederation. To guard 
 agains-t the continuance of this state of things was an object of deep interest with all 
 truly wise, as well as the virtuous of this great community, and was one of the important 
 benefits expected from the establishment of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 The Convention, guided by the comprehensive and enlightened views we have men- 
 tioned, endowed the Federal Government with powers of the most ample nature, equal 
 to the attainment of all the useful purposes of public authority. 
 
 There was no subject agitated in the Convention which created a more intense and 
 deep interest among the slaveholding States than that of providing a certain and secure 
 mode of perjietuating the bondage of slaves within their boundaries. Difficulties of the 
 most perplexing and harrassing character, in reference to fugitive slaves, had occurred 
 previous to the adaption of the Constitution ; and it is absurd to tuppose that the mem- 
 
14 
 
 bers of the Convention representing the interests of these States did not intend carefully 
 to guard against a recurrence of similar evils ; and it seems to me to be a fair inference 
 from the proceedings of the Convention, that they supposed they had done so effectually 
 by the adoption of the clauses in the Constitution above referred to, and ttiat they in- 
 tended to confer full power upon Congress to regulate the whole matter. 
 
 On the 2'Jth of August, 17H7,as we learn from the minutes, it was moved and second- 
 ed to agree to the following proposition, to be inserted after the 15th article: "If any 
 person bound to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another 
 State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor in consequence of any 
 regulation subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the 
 person justly claiming their service or labor," which passed nnanimnusly. The 15th 
 article referred to above was the article providing for the surrender of fugitives from jus- 
 tice, and this sugi^ested the idea that it would be well to provide, also, for the surrender 
 of fugitive slaves. From Mr. Madison's report we learn that the day before, Messrs. 
 Butler and Pinckney, of South Carolina, had informally proposed that fugitive slaves and 
 servants should be delivered up " like criminals." Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania : " This 
 would oblige the E.xecutive to do it at the public expense." Mr. Sherman, of Connecti- 
 cut, " saw no more impropriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant 
 than a horse." [Machson's Papers, p. 144] The next day the motion was made in 
 form, and, as Mr. Madison says," agreed to nem. con." Messrs Wilson and Sherman's 
 objections arose from no moral repugnance to the surrender ot fugitive slaves, bui from 
 the inconvenience they apprehended the State authorities would be subjected to ; and 
 Mr. Wilton spoke from experience, as his own 8tate had at that very time a law for sur- 
 rendering and delivering up fugitive slaves from other States. This agreement was a 
 compromise between the North and South. It was believed that the members of the 
 Convention would not have formed a Constitution, unless it was agreed to surrender fu- 
 gitive slaves. It was deemed a compact convenient to both South and North. 
 
 On entering into this Government, they apprehended that the other Stales, not know- 
 ing the necessities the Southern States were under to hold this species of property, would 
 from motives of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general emancipation ; 
 and had they not seen that the Constitution provided against the effect of such a dispo- 
 position, they never would have adopted it. 
 
 It is well known that, when this Constitution was formed, some of the States permit- 
 ted slavery and the slave trade, and considered them highly essential to their interests; 
 and that some of the Slates had abolished slavery within their own limits, and from the 
 principles deduced and policy avowed by them, might be presumed to desire to extend 
 such abolition further. It was, therefore, manifestly the iiUent and object of one party 
 to this couipnci to establish, extend, and secure, as far as possible, the rights and powers 
 of the owners of slaves within their own limits, and of the other party to limit and res- 
 train thun. Under these circumstances, the clause in the Constitution was agreed on 
 and introduced into the Conssitution ; and as it was well considered, as it was intended 
 to secure peace and harmony, and to fix as precisely as language could do it the limit to 
 which the rights of one party should be carried within the territory of the other, it is to 
 be presumed that they selected terms intended to express their exact and their whole 
 meaning; and it would be a departure fiom the purpose and spirit of tlie compact to put 
 any other construction upon it than that to be derived from the plain and natural import 
 of the language used. Besides, this construction of the provisions of the Consiitution 
 gives to it a latitude sufficient to afford effectual security to the owners of slaves. The 
 States have a plenary power to make all laws necessary fir the regulation of slavery and 
 the rights of the slave owners, whilst the slaves remain within the territorial limits; and 
 it is only when they escape into other States that they require the aid of other States 
 to enable them to regain the dominion of the fugitives. This point is supported by most 
 respectable and unexceptionable authorities. [See Butler vs. Hopper, 1 Wash. C. C. 
 Rep. 499.] 
 
 'This brings the case to a single point, whether the statute of the United States giving 
 power to seize a slave without a warrant, is constitutional. We must reflect, however, 
 that the compact was made with some States in which it would not occur to the 
 mind to enquire whether slaves were property. It was a serious question, when they 
 came to make the Constitution, what should be done with their slaves. They might 
 have kept aloof from the Constitution. That instrument was a compromise. It was a 
 compact by which all are bound. We are to consider, then, what was the intention of 
 the Constitution. The words of it were used out of delicacy, so as not to offend some 
 in the Convention whose feelings were abhorrent to slavery ; but we entered into an 
 agreement that slaves should be considered as properti/. Slavery would still have con- 
 
15 
 
 tinued if no Constitution had been made. [Per. Parker, Ch. J., Commonwealth vs. Grif- 
 fith, 2 Pickering's Rep., 19.] 
 
 These were the considerations which recommended it with greater force. Had the 
 Convention refused to proceed in the incorporation of this provision, what was the alter- 
 native which such a refusal presented to the consideration of the Convention? The 
 Convention would have been at an end, after having accomplished all other objects ; for 
 if this interest was not arranged, none other would be. The attitude which the Govern- 
 ments held towards each other, was in a certam degree hostile. Injuries had been in- 
 flicted by one section of the country, and resentment shown by the other — the one 
 having taken steps in the case of the non-importation law, which was intended to vindi- 
 cate Southern rights and honor, by being made the means of obtaining a redress of these 
 injuries. 
 
 The guaranty of this right of recapture and title of ownership in slaves, upon which 
 the preservation of the institution of slavery depended, which was thereby secured in 
 the slaveholding States, was well stated by Mr. Madison and others in the several Con- 
 ventions called to consider the Constitution. Speaking in defence of this provision in 
 the Virginia Convention, in reply to Mr. George Mason, who declared " that there was 
 no clause in the Constitution to secure slave property," Mr. Madison said : 
 
 " This clause was expressly to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a 
 better security than any that now exists. No power is given to the General Govern- 
 ment to interpose with respect to property now held by the States." [Elliot's Debates, 
 vol. 2, p. 335-36.] 
 
 Governor Randolph held the same language. He said : 
 
 " Were it right to mention what passed in the Convention, I might tell you that the 
 Southern States— even South Carolina herself— considered this property secured by 
 these words. I believe, whatever we may think here, that there was not a member of 
 the Virginia delegation who had the smallest suspicion of the abolition of slavery." 
 [Ibid, vol. 2, p. 437.] 
 
 In the Convention of North Carolina Mr. Iredell spoke as follows : 
 
 " In some of the Northern States they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of 
 our slaves go there and remain there a certain tim'>, they would by the present law he 
 entitled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would 
 be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to prevent it this 
 clause is in.serteu in the Constitution. Though the word slave is not mentioned, this 
 is the meaning of it. The Northern delegates, owmg to their particular scruples on the 
 subjectof slavery, did not choose the word slave to be mentioned." [Ibid, vol. 3, p. 167.] 
 
 And in the debate in the Legislature of South Carolina, when the Constitution v/as 
 assailed on the same ground as in the Conventions of Virginia and North Carolina, 
 Charles Cotesworth Pinckney made this answer : 
 
 " We have obtained (said he) a right to recover our slaves in whatever part of Ameri- 
 ca they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering all 
 the circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of pro- 
 perty it was in our power to make. We would have made them better if we could, but 
 on the whole I do not think them bad." [Ibid, vol. 3, p. 357.] 
 
 Upon this subject the following remarks were made in the Convention of Massachu- 
 setts by General Heath: 
 
 " I apprehend, (said he,) that it is not in our power to do anything for or against those 
 who are in slavery in the Southern States." Again : " If we ratify the Constitution, 
 shall we be doing anything by our act to hold the blacks in slavery ; or shall we become 
 the partakers of every man's sinsi Each State is sovereign and independent to a cer- 
 tain degree, and they have a right and will regulate their own internal affairs as to 
 themselves appear proper ; and shall we refuse to eat or to drink, or to be united with 
 those who do rtot think or act just as we do? Surely not." [See Elliot's Debates, vol. 
 l,p. 124.] 
 
 Mr. John Q. Adams, in speaking of the protection extended to the peculiar interests 
 of the South, under this provision of the Constitution, makes the following remarks: 
 
 " Protected by the advantage of representation on this floor— protected by the stipu- 
 lation in the Constitution for the recovery of fugitive slaves— protected by the guarantee 
 in the Constitution to the owners of this species of property against domestic violence." 
 [See Mr. Adams's speech on the tariff bill. May, 1833.] 
 
16 
 
 Again : " What he said was, that the South possessed a greater protected interest, an 
 Interest protected by that instrument." [Mr. Adams held the Constitution in his hand.] 
 He was Jur " adhering to the bargain." He further remarked : " And but for such a 
 clause, a Southern gentleman who had lost some article oj his machinery, (his slave 
 interest,) could never recover him back from the free States. Such was the protection 
 extended by the Constitution to a peculiar interest." [See Mr. Adams's speech in the 
 House of Representatives, February 4, 1833.] 
 
 Are the acts of 1793 and 1860 necessary to carry the injunctions of the Constitution 
 into eilect? It is true, without a subsequent law, this provision of the Constitution, to 
 tome extent, would have been inoperative. 
 
 The act of 1793 contains a contemporaneous construction of the Constitution in this 
 respect, of great weight, considering who were the authors of that law ; and which has 
 since been confirmed by the repeated decisions of the judicial tribunals of the country. 
 The legislative and judicial exposition has been acquiesced in; no attempt has ever been 
 made to abrogate the law upcn the ground of its repugnancy to the Constitution. But 
 even before the Cotistiiuiion was adopted, and whilst it was submitted to public discus- 
 sion, this interpretation was given to it by its friends, who were anxious to avoid every 
 objection winch could render it obnoxious to the youth. 
 
 By the 2d section of the 4th article, it is provided that " no person held to service or 
 labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of 
 any law or regulation thereof, be discharged from such labor or service, but shall be de- 
 livered up ' on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'" it de- 
 clares also. (Art. 6, sec. 2,) " That this Constitution, and the laws of the United Stales 
 made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges ol every 
 Stale shall be bound thereby ; any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the 
 contrary notwithstanding.*' 
 
 Does this clause profess to be preliminary, or to rely on Congressional instrumentality in 
 the consiimmaiion of the purposes for which it was designed 1 Does it pretend, upon the 
 face of it, to be a pact, complete and self-efficient, from the obligations of which the 
 Slates cannot escape, and to the perfection of which no more was necessary than was 
 already done I 
 
 Heie is the princ pie : the fugitive is to be delivered up on claim of his master. But 
 it required a law to regulate the manner in which this principle should be reduced to 
 practice. It was necessary to establish some mode in which the claim should be made, 
 and the fugitive delivered up. 
 
 Wha' are the means of enforcing the provision in the Constitution, without legal enact- 
 ments to carry it into effect ? No penalty is fixed for the violation of its injunctions — 
 no forfeiture is imposed by it. As it stands in the Constitution, it is merely powerless 
 and nugatory. I'he fugitive slave was to be " delivered up." How deliver»-d ? How 
 executed ? Delivered, if escaping into a Slate, by an officer of the Federal Gov 
 ernmeni? No such provision. How was the title to the property to be ascertained? 
 No su h provision. Neither of these results would follow ; and the constitutional decla- 
 ration, without penalties and further provisions, was a dead letter — a nullity. 
 
 The words of this provision of the Constitution meant to be interpreted to enjoin leg- 
 islation. Ttiey necessarily denote future action, as ihe scope and effect of the article 
 does not give it a present and positive character. This inference, nhich thus results from 
 the lan^iuage of the clause of the Constitution, and from a comparison of it with that 
 used in other parts of the same instrument, becomes more certain when we investigate 
 the proceedings of ihe Convention ihat formed the Constitution, and of the regard mani- 
 fested for its incorporation in the organic law of the land. 
 
 The Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, have said, that the nature of a 
 constiiut'on " requires only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects 
 designated, and the minor ingredients which compose these objects be deduced from the 
 objects themselves." " The constitution unavoidably deals in general language ;" it 
 does not " enumerate the means" by which its provisions shall be carried into operation. 
 [4 Wheat. 407, 8. I Wheat. 32fi. Baldwin's Constitutional Views, 99, 100, 102.] So 
 also the Constitution of the United States contained only the important objects and great 
 outlines of the Government. All the details of legislation were left to that department 
 of the Government to whom that duty appropriately belonged. 
 
 The Constitution does not stop at a mere enunciation of the right of the owner to 
 seize his absconding or fugitive slave in the State to which he may have fled. It it had 
 done so, it would have left the owner of the slave, in many cases, wholly without any 
 adequate redress. The Constitution declares that the fugitive slave shall be delivered 
 up on claim of the party to whom service or labor may be due. It is exceedingly difR- 
 
17 
 
 «'iilt, if not impraclicable, to read this language, and not feel that it contemplated some 
 further remedial redress than that which might be administered at the hand of the owner 
 himself It cannot be well doubted, that the Constitution requires the delivery of the 
 fugitive " on the claim of the master ;" and the natural inference certainly is, that the 
 National Government is clothed with the appropriate authority and functions to enforce it. 
 
 In the case of Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (16 Peters, 624,) the pro- 
 vision of the Constitution as to the surrender of fugitives from service was under con- 
 sideration. Story, J», in delivering the opinion of the court, speaking of that clause 
 which enacts that the fugitive shall be delivered up on claim of the party to wh<iin such 
 service may be due, says: "We think it exceedingly difficult, if not impracticable, to 
 read this language, and not to f-^el that it contemplated some further remedial redress 
 than that which might be administered at the hands of the owner himself * * They 
 required the aid af legislaiion to protect the right, to enjorce the delivery, and to recover 
 the subsequent possession of the slave." And the court, in this case, declares that the 
 Constitution does execute itself, so far as to establish the absolute riglu of the owner to 
 recapture his slave. 
 
 Upon all principles of legal construction and propriety, the construction of this provi- 
 sion in the Constitution looks to future acts of the legislature, and not to immediate 
 effect. It shows that legislative provisions were anticipated. The purpose was to im- 
 pose and enjoin on the States, to which slaves might escape, to deliver them up to 
 claimants legally authorized to receive them. The policy was thus stlemnly settled ; 
 and can it be supposed that the carrying out that policy would have been left in the im- 
 perfect situation, as to its enforcement, in which the adoption of the Constitution placed 
 It ? The act of 1793, in the opinion of Congress, was required to carry this provision of 
 the Constitution in force. 
 
 The Constitutif>n contains two different kinds of provisions: the one may be desig- 
 nated self-executed, or capable of self-execution ; tbe other, only executory, and requir- 
 ing legislative enactment to give them operation. Thus, the 2d section of the 4th article, 
 which declares that "citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immu- 
 nities of citizens of the several States ;" the 10th section of the first article, which pro- 
 hibits any State from making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of 
 debts; from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts; are all examples of 
 the self-executed provisions of the Constitution — by which we me^in to say, that the Con- 
 stitution, in these instances, is, ^er se, operative, without the aid of legislation. On the 
 contrary, the various provisions of the 8th section of the same article, such, for example, 
 as " the power to establish an uniform system of naturalization, and uniform laws on the 
 subject of bankruptcy," are executory only ; that is, without an act of legislation, they 
 have no operative effect. 
 
 This case, then, arising under the Constitution, is one which arises under its execu- 
 tory provisions. In the case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of the United 
 States held that the Constitution, so far ns the process and removal of the fugitive, and 
 seizure, executes itself, without statutory regulation. 
 
 Let any one turn his eye back to the lime when this grant was made, and say if the 
 situation of the people admitted of an abandonment of a power so important to every 
 Southern State; so universally sustained in its reasonable exercise by the opinion and 
 practice of the people ; and so vitally interesting to a people, whose whole property con- 
 sisted of this species of population? 
 
 It may with confidence be affirmed, that when the Constitution was adopted, had it 
 then been imagined that this question would ever have been made, or that the exercise of 
 this power of regulating the recapture of fugitive slaves would ever have depended upon 
 {he views of the different tribunals of the States, the effort to form a system of Govern- 
 ment, would have been a total failure. 
 
 Before the adoption of the Constitution, the States were, to a certain extent, sovereign 
 and independent, and were in a condition to settle the terms upon which they would 
 form a more perfect Union. It has been contended by some over-zealous philanthropists, 
 that such an article in the Constitution would be of no binding force or validity, because 
 it was a stipulation contrary to natural right But it is difficult to perceive the force of 
 this objection. It has already been shown that slavery is not contrary to the laws of 
 nations. It would then be the proper subject of treaties among sovereign and indepen- 
 dent powers. Suppose, instead of forming the present Constitution, the several States 
 had become in all respects sovereign and independent, would it not have been compe- 
 tent for them to stipulate by treaty that fugitive slaves should be mutua'ly restored, and 
 to frame suitable regulations, under which such a stipulation should be carried into ef- 
 fect 1 Such a stipulation would be highly important and necessary to secure harmony 
 2 
 
18 
 
 between adjoining nations, and to prevent perpetual collisions and border wars. Now, 
 the Gtinsutuiiou of the United Stales partakes both of the nature of a treaty and of a 
 form of Government. It regards the States, to a certain e.xtent, as soveieign and inde- 
 pendent communities, with iull power to mai^e their own laws, and regulate their own 
 domestic policy, and fixes the terms upon which their own intercourse may be regulated 
 and controlled. 
 
 Pursuant to this provision of the Constitution, tlie act of Congress of the 12lh of Feb- 
 ruary, 1793, was papsed, not to restore the rights of the master, but to give him the aid 
 of a law to enforce them. This act empowers the person to whom a fugitive from labor 
 or service is due, his agent or attorney, to seize or arrest such fugitive from labor, and 
 to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, 
 residing within the State, oi before any magistrate of a county, city, &c., where such 
 seizure was made, and on proof of owing service to the claimant, either by offidnvil, or 
 other evidence, taken before a judge or magistrate of ihe State from which the fugitive 
 escaped, the judge or magistrate of the State in which he or she is arrested shall give a 
 certificate thereof to the claimant, his agent or attorn'-y, which shall be a sufficient war- 
 rant lor removing such fugitive. [See 1 Baldwin's Reports, 87 ; 5 Serg. & Rawie, 63.] 
 
 The act proves that the framers of the Constitution did not understand the provision 
 in the Constitution as effective until the Legislature should act upon it ; that it imposed 
 a duty upon the Legislature to act. 
 
 The power of enacting the provisions of the act of 1793 is given to Congress in gen- 
 eral terms, without restriction or qualification; and upon every just principle of construc- 
 tion, must be understood to confer whatever authority is necessary for carrying the power 
 into effect, and every authority which, in practice, had become incident to the principal 
 power, and was deemed to make a part of it. 
 
 The incident of this power being qnite as important as the power itself, the power 
 being worse than worthless without it, did the people cf the United States, in forming the 
 constitution of government for thenisi Ives, intend to destroy the power, by stripping it of 
 the incidents that gave it all its value? Did they mean to prevent its application to the 
 cases to which they had themselves applied it? and for what purpose? Belter, far bet- 
 ter would it have been that no power at all should have been granted to Congress, than 
 that they should thus be required either blindly to submit or sullenly to reject. The de- 
 sign of the Constitution was not to abridge, but to enlarge and strengthen the powers of 
 the Federal Government, and it would be strangely inconsistent with the general plan 
 to suppose that, in a matter which is properly a matter of national concern, it has denied 
 to Congress a portion of power which has been actually and beneficially exercised under 
 the Confederation. 
 
 With regard to the universal understanding of the people on this subject there cannot 
 be two opinions. If contemporaneous exposition and the clear understanding of the 
 legislative power could be resorted to as the means of expounding an instrument, the 
 continuous and unimpaired existence of this power in Congress ought never to have been 
 controverted; nor was it controverted until very recently, or until a state of things re- 
 quired the enactment of a law containing more stringent provisions than the act of 1793. 
 Previously to the passage of the act of 1850, Congress remained in the peaceable exercise 
 of this power, under circumstances entitled to great consideration. In every State in 
 the Union was ihe adoption of the Constitution resisted by men of the keenest and most 
 comprehensive minds ; and if an argument, such as this, so calculated to fasten on the 
 minds of a people jealous of State rights and deeply interested in the operations of the 
 Government, could have been imagined, it never would have escaped them. Yet no where 
 does it appear to have been thought of ; and, after adopting the Constitution in every 
 part of the Union, we find the framers of it every where among the leading men in pub- 
 lic life, and legislating and adjudicating under the most solemn oath to maintain the 
 Consiitution of the United States, yet no where imagining that, by the exercise of thia 
 power, they violated their oaths or transcended their rights. 
 
 This being the construction given to the Constitution immediately after its adoption, 
 and which has been acted upon without opposition, and acquiesced in for more than fifty- 
 five years, it was not to have been expected that its correctness would, at this late period, 
 have been drawn in question. 
 
 It must be recollected that this contemporaneous construction of the Constitution was 
 made by those who had the best possible means of knowing what was its true intent. 
 Many of the distinguished members of the Convention which formed the Constitution 
 were, in 1793, in the National Councils. 
 
 The Congress of the United States, when required to act affirmatively, cannot disre- 
 gjad a mandate of the Constitution. The supremacy of the Constitution is tlie great 
 
19 
 
 cardinal principle of American liberty, from which there is no appeal but to force; and 
 to subvert its principles, or disregard its mandates, is anarchical and revolutionary. 
 
 In truth, if there be any thing in onr legislative history which is entitled to our affec- 
 tion for the motives in which it originnted; to our veneration for the authority by which 
 it was supported; to our respect for the principles introduced in it, it is the act of 17'J3. 
 But ihe charge of usurpation is in every sense inapplicable, for the efficacy of the 
 act arises from the assent of the States now complaining of the adoption of the mea- 
 sures 
 
 It was a custom among the ancients, when their religion was in dansjer, to bring the 
 Godhead itself from the shrine. When our Constitution is threatened with subversion, 
 can it be deemed irreverent to call upon the stage the patriotic individuals who sustained 
 this law'' 
 
 It passed in the Senate unanimously, Friday, January If^, 1793. [Senate Journal, 
 vol. 1, p. 472 ] Of the Senators of that day were John Langdon, of New Hamp- 
 shire; Geo. Cabot, of Massachusetts; Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman, of Connec- 
 ticut; Rufus King, ot New York; and Robert Morris,of Pennsylvania. 
 
 The act of 1793 was supported by Chief Justice Ellsworth, distinguished at the bar 
 and on the bench as a statesman and a jurist; who repeatedly served with distinction 
 in the Legislature of his State, and was a member of the Convention which formed the 
 Constitution. He was not only a member of the Convention, but he witnessed all that 
 transpired in that Conventicm; he participated in the debate upon the question, and ob- 
 served all the modifications of the provisions of the act through which it underwent in 
 that illustrious body of patriots who gave birth to the Constitution. 
 
 The Fugitive Slave Bill of 1792 was drafted by George Cabot, of Massachusetts, in 
 November, and it was passed by the Senate on the 18th of January, unanimously, four- 
 teen members from tree and thirteen from slave States voting for it. The House 
 committee, Theodore Sedgwick and Shearjashub Bourne, of .Massachusetts, and 
 Alexander White, of Virginia, reported the bill to that body, by which it was passed, 
 on the 4th of February, without discussion. Eight free Stales were represented by 31 
 votes, si.ic slave States by 24 votes; free State majority 7. The bill received 48 yeas to 
 7 nays. Massachusetts gave 6 yeas to 1 nay. This record shows that the free Slates 
 passed the Jir.t fugitive slave bill. 
 
 That was not a time for stretching the Federal power. The greatest jealou.sy pre- 
 vailed, and the friends of the Constitution were obliged to observe the utmost caution 
 while it was winning its way to public favor — refuting the suggestions of its enemies, 
 and rccommenJing it to its friends. 
 
 The act of 17t»;J was approved by George Washington and his Cabinet. On the 
 talents and virtues which adorned the < abinet of that day — on the patient fortitude with 
 which it resisted the intemperate violence with which it was assailed — on the firmness 
 with which it maintained those principles which its sense of duly prescribed — on the 
 wisdom of the rules it adopted — no panegyric can be pronounced in which the best judg- 
 meni of the nation will not concur. 
 
 The law of Congress was passed in the year 1793, the second session after the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution; it was proposed, debated, and digested by a body of men, the 
 chief and prominent characters of whom were themselves the erectors of our National 
 Government It has been acceded to and acted under by every State in the Union; it 
 has never been instrumental to any signal grievance, or complained of as a public evil; 
 it has on the contrary been resorted to as a useful and salutary regulation. In the House 
 of Representatives the vote on its passage was yeas 48, nays 7 — in the proportion al- 
 most of seven to one. Here is the list as it stands upon the record; 
 
 YiCAS — Fisher Ames, Mass, John Baptiste Ashe, N. C, Abraham Baldwin, Ga., 
 Robert Barnwell, S. C, Egbert Benson, N. Y., Elias Boudinot, N. J , Shearjashub 
 Bourne, Mass., Benjamin Bourn, R. I., Abraham Clark, N. J., Jonaih.nn Dayton, N. J., 
 William Findley, la., Thomas Fitzsimmons, Pa., Elbridge (''erry, Mass., Nicbolas Gil- 
 man, N. H., Benjamin Goodhue, Mass., .lames Gordon, Pa , Christopher Greenup, Ky., 
 Andrew Gregg, Pa., Samuel Griffin, Va., William Barry Grove, A'. C, Thomas Hart- 
 ley, Pa., James Hillhouse, Ct., William Hindman, Md., Daniel Huger, S. C, Israel Ja- 
 cobs, Pa., Philip Key, Md., Aaron Mitchell, N. J., Amasa Learned, Ct., Richard Bland 
 Lee, Va., George Leonard, Mass., Nathaniel Macon, N. C, Andrew Moore, Va., Fre- 
 derick Augustus Muhlenberg, Pa., William Vans Murray, Md. , Alexander D. Orr, Ky., 
 John Pase, Va., Cornelius Schoonmaker, N. Y., Theodore Sedgwick, Mass., Peter Sil- 
 vester, N. Y., Israel Smith, Vt., William Smith, S. C, JolnrSteele, N. C, Thomas 
 
20 
 
 Sumpter, S. C, Thomas Tudor Tucker, S. C, Jeremiah Waiisworth, Ct., Alexander 
 White, Va., Huyh Williamson, N. C, Francis Willis, Ga. 
 
 Navs — Samuel Livermore, N. H., .Iiijin Francis Mercer, Md., Nailiauiel Niles, Vt., 
 Josiah Parker, Va., Jonathan Sturges, Ct., George Thatcher, Mass., Thomas Tredwell, 
 N. Y. [House Journal, vol, 1, p (=90. ] 
 
 An analysis of this vote, according? to geographical divisions, shows that from the 
 Northern Mates there were twenty six votes in favor of the bill, and five auainst it; and 
 that from the Southern States there were twenty two votes for and two against it. And 
 of those who voted in the affirmative, five — Baldwin and Williamson, of Georgia, Day- 
 ton, of New Jersey, Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania, and Gilman, of New Hampshire — 
 were memhers ol the Federal Convention; and two, ('lark, of New Jersey, and Gerry, 
 of Ma.-;sachusetts — signers of the Declaration of Independence. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Objections to the Act of 1850 Reviewed. 
 
 Among the many objections against the fugitive law of 1850, it has been urged that 
 there was nothing which called for its enactment; that it was, therefore, a wanton en- 
 croachment upon the feelings and prejudices of the North This is urged by many who 
 are opposed to complying with the re(iuirements of the Constitution, and who honestly 
 suppose that the law of 1793 was amply sufficient to enforce the rights of the Southern 
 claimants as guarantied in that instrument. But such every intelligent man knows is 
 not the fact Under the laws which had been enacted by several States, aided by the 
 prejudices of the people against slavery, it was next to an impossibility to recover a fu- 
 gitive; and thus, while the North and East insisted that there should be no nullification 
 at the South, but that those south of Mason and Dixon's line should abide by the Con- 
 stitution, it was claimed that at the North those who cliosc might act in defiance to it, 
 and the laws passed under it in relation to fugitive slaves. But when we look at the facts, 
 at the legislative action of several of the non slaveholding States, can we say, that in 
 justice to the South and to the con-titutional obligations, there was no reason why there 
 should not be made further provisions for complying with the requirements of that instru- 
 ment. The following is an act of the Massachusetts Legislature: 
 
 " Skc. 1. No Judge of any Couit of Record of this Commonwealth, and no Justice 
 of the Peace shall hereafter take cognizance or grant a certificate in causes that may 
 arise under the third section of an act of Congress, passed February 12th, 1793, and 
 entitled ' An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the ser- 
 vice of their masters,' to any other person as a fugitive slave within the jurisdiction of 
 this Commonwealth. 
 
 " Sec. 2. No SherilT, Deputy Sherilf, Coroner, Constable, Jailor, or other officer of 
 this (Commonwealth, shall hereafter arrest or detain, or aid in the arrest and detention 
 or inipri.sonmtnt, in any jail or any other building belonging to this Commonwealth, 
 or to any county, city, or town thereof, of any person for the reason that he is claimed 
 as a fugitive slave. 
 
 "Skc. 3. Any Justice of the Peace, Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff, Coroner, Constable, or 
 Jailer, who shall offend against the provi.sions of this law, by in any way acting directly 
 under the power conferred by the third section of the act of Congress, afoiementioned, 
 shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars for every such offence to the use 
 of the county where said offence is committed, or shall be subject to imprisonment not 
 exceedinj; one year in the county jail." — Approved by the Governor, Marcus Morton, 
 Marc/i 24, 1818. 
 
 This law was copied by the Legislature of Rhode Island, and remains to this day on 
 her statute book; and one analagous in its provisions had been passed by the Legislature 
 of I'ennsylvaniii in 1S4V. In the State of New York a similar one is in existence, but 
 has been i)ronounced by the Supreme Court of the State to be unconstitutional. The 
 arrest and detention of fugitive slaves, by State authority, is pr.ihibited in Connecticut. 
 [See act of 1814, Revised Statutes of Connecticut, p. :'/85.] It was the system of laws 
 Uke these, and of a disposition on the part of a portion of the community at the North 
 
21 
 
 to obstruct and hinder the execution of the law of 1793, that demanded the enactment 
 of the act of 1850. 
 
 These unauthorized assumptions of power by the non-slavehoiding States practically- 
 destroyed the right of the South to reclaim their property. This right must otherwise 
 have proved ineffectual without the act of 1850. These assumptions of power nulhfied a 
 clear admitted right, which right carries with it the most cogent and persuasive a[)peal to 
 the conscience, the equity, and good will of Northern legislators, and fenced in as it is liy all 
 the most sacred and inviolable sanctions of the failh and honor of the Federal Government — 
 a right which the South claim to exercise, impelled equally by every moral motive and 
 duty, and by the most consummate of constitutional obligations — all this would be re- 
 duceJ by the legislation of some of the States to a naked, theoretical, outstanding, and 
 litigated right, stripped of all its original sanctions, both legal and moral, and to be 
 contested with an adversary above the law ; and in no circumstances disposed to discuss 
 questions of positive right and justice, or to perform the requirements of the < 'onstilution. 
 
 The obligation on the part of the non-slaveholding States to afford adequate protection 
 to the iSouthern claimant in reclaiming his property, is no doul't of the highest and most 
 sacred kind; and there is a duly equally strong upon the people of those Stales to avoid 
 giving offence, by any irregular and improper conduct, and upon the local government's 
 sincerity to punish and repress instances of such conduct. If the.se misguided individuals 
 can with impunity thwart all the measures of the Federal Government for restoring pro- 
 perty; if they can with impunity commit outrages upon the rights of siavehob'ers, and 
 in violation of the provisions of the Constitution; can it be surprismg if, under such cir- 
 cumstances, strong measures should be adopted to enforce rights and obligations which 
 grow out of these rights, and are guarantied by the Constitution. 
 
 The act of 1850 is auxiliary to the Constitution. It does not deal with principles 
 which the Constitution does not bear in its bosom. It contains subsidiary clauses, de- 
 pendant provisions, flowing as corollaries from the Constitution. 
 
 In saying that the law of IS.'iO is just such a law as that of 1793, we mean that it is 
 identical so far as it respects its object, the reclamation and giving up fugitive slaves. 
 .It acts simply as the echo of the act of 79-3. ''htgetninat vo'CS. auditaque verha re- 
 porhit.''^ It may with some propriety be called the twin brother of the act of 1793; its 
 duplicate, its refiecled portrait, for it re enacts with a tried fidelity, all that the act of 1793 
 stipulates. 
 
 It is provided by the act of 179.3 that the certificate for the delivery and removal of the 
 fugitives to the State or Territory from which they had fled should tie given upon satis- 
 factory pioof tliat the person arrested owed service to the claimant, by a judge of the 
 ciicuitor district court of the United States, or by a State magistrate, before whom the 
 fugitive was, of course, in such cases to be taken. 
 
 The sixth section of the act of 1850 operates to the same extent, and no further ; ex- 
 cept in this, that, in addition to the judges, it authorizes commissioners, appointed by 
 the circuit courts of the United States and by the supreme court in the ! erntories, to 
 grant the certificate of delivery and removal. 
 
 The fourth section of the act of 1793 subjected any person who should hinder or ob- 
 struct the seizure or arrest of a fugitive slave, or rescue the fugitive after arre.st, or harbor 
 or conceal such fugitive, "after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor," to a 
 fine of live hundred dcillars, to be recovered for the benefit of the claimant, in any court 
 of competent jurisoiction. 
 
 The seventh .■section of the act of 18.t0 contains the same provisions, with this differ- 
 ence, that persons guilty of any of the offences named in the act of 179 3 are liable to a 
 fine not exceeding one thou.sand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, 
 besides forfeiting and paying, as civil damages, one thousand dollars, to the party in- 
 jured by their illegal conduct, to be recovered in the manner prescribed by the 4th sec- 
 tion of the act of 1793. Such penalties, all good citizens must admit, are no more than 
 should be visited upon those who, whatever the pretext, undertake to resist the laws of 
 the Union 
 
 The difference between the two acts consists in this only : That the act of 18.''i0, by 
 its fifth section, makes the United States marshals liable to claimants for the escape of 
 fugitives to the full value of their services or labor, and to a fine also of one thousand 
 dollars, to the use of the claimant, in case they refuse or neglect to execute the warrant 
 or other process; and commands them, by its ninth section, where the claimant, after 
 the issue of the certificate, makes an affidavit that he has reason to apprehend that the 
 fugitive will be rescued from his possession by force before he can convejf him beyond the 
 
22 
 
 Hmitsof the 8late where the arrest was made, "to retain the fugitive in custody, remove 
 him to the State whence he fled, and there deliver him to the claimant, his agent, or 
 attorney." 
 
 Judge Grier, of the United States Supreme Court, says: " The chief diiTerence between 
 the fugitive act of 1850 and 17'J-5, is that the former law allows a warrant to be issued 
 by a Judge and the arrest to be made by a public ofTiccr, and imposes more strinirent 
 penalties on those who interfere by violence to prevent the execution of legal process. 
 Those who believe that the (Jonslitution and laws should be regarded ami obeyed, have 
 no ground of complaint, and those who do not, will continue to rant at both as usual." 
 One of the present (objections to the law of 18,51), one that has been most fiequently 
 urged, that constitutes a prominent part of the inflammatory speeches, and the abolition- 
 ists appear to rely upon more than any other for its popular elfect, is, that it makes no 
 provision for a jury trial. But it is well known that with respect to this it is expressly like 
 the law of 1793, of which, we believe, they never complained; with respect to the habeas 
 corpus, tliere is n> difference. 
 
 The decisio!) of the ?iu()reme Court settles the constitutionality of the act of IS^iO, as 
 the principal features of this act are precisely analogous to the provisions of the act of 
 1793. The decisions of the circuit courts sustain, also, the whole current of adjudica- 
 tion in relation to this question. 
 
 "In the case of Hill vs- Lowe, which was tried in Pennsylvania, [Wash. Kep., vol. 
 4, 327,] it was decided that if a person knowingly obstructs the owner or his agent in 
 seizing a fugitive slave, he cannot escape the penalty provided in such case by the act of 
 1793, upon the ground of the ignorance of the law, or of an honest belief that the party 
 arrested was not a fugitive from service or labor." [See, also, Jones vs. Vanzandt, 2 
 McLane's Reports, 596. Howard's Reports, vol. 5, 215. Johnson vs. Thompkins, I 
 Baldwin's Reports, 571. See, also, Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 
 Peters. ] 
 
 In the opinion of Congress, this power of arrest and all its con.sequeiits and ap- 
 pendages as san<tioned by the Constitution, had not been in operation until the passage 
 of the act of 1793. 
 
 The tliird section of the act of 1793 [U. S. Stat, at Large, vol 1, p. 302,] author 
 ized owners to seize their slaves in any State or Territory in which they might find them. 
 In virtue of this slaves might be taken even without a warrant; and it was no olfence 
 against the laws of a State for the owners or their agents to convey them back to 
 the State whence they absconded. [Baldwin's C. C. Rep , p. 577-'79 ] Still, this 
 power was, from the very difliculty of its exercise, nugatory, unless aided by positive 
 law. 
 
 Another objection is, that the act of 1850 suspends the writ oi habeas rurpus. 
 
 Of all the niisrepre.sentatioiis which abolitionism and nullification have relif'd on to throw 
 odium upon the law in (juestion, and to encourage resistance to its execution, none have 
 l)een pressed with more pertinacity tiian the position that the act of 1S50 virtually sus- 
 pended the writ of //«/;ert.v co;y)f/,y. How successful this pretence was, and how much 
 the efforts to disseminate such an impression have done towards exciting a leeling of op- 
 position not only to the act itself, but to the compact which made it necessary, it is im- 
 possible to say. But it is fair to presume, that in the alisence of any ca.se where the writ 
 has been offered in arrest of proceedings, and of course of any practical judicial construc- 
 tion on this i)oint, the fanatics may have [lartially succeeded in exciting a feeling akin to 
 that of resistance to the laws of the land. 
 
 The Constitution declares that "the writ of ^'.iea,' corpus shall not be suspended, 
 unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety demand it." With this 
 limitation Congress can pass no law which could suspend it, for such a law the courts 
 would not sustain, and of course the right would not be thereby infringed or taken away. 
 The act of 1 8.">0 does neither; it leaves the writ to be granted in the discretion ot any 
 judge or court havinii the power to award it Tlie truth is, there seems to 1hi either a 
 singular degree of ignorance or a wilful misconception of the nature and definition of the 
 writ of iiubiu-s corpus. It will discharge no one held in custody under due process of 
 law. It is a high prerogative writ, which o[)erates merely to release whoever is illeir.iUy 
 restrained of his liberty [2 Kent's Com. p. 32] But let us look to the decisions of 
 the courts in the free States in cases similar to such as may arise under the fugitive slave 
 law for its true exposition. 
 
 In the case of Randall vs- Bridge, and also of the Commonwealth vs. Brickett, decided 
 in the Supreme Court of .Massachusetts, the doctrine of the law was stated as follows: 
 
23 
 
 *• The intention of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve from unlawful imprisonment, 
 and not to alter the law authorizing commitments."— [2 Mass Reports, 549-553, 8 Pick. 
 138] 
 
 Again, in Riley's case, and in the case of the Commonwealth v^. Whitney, it was 
 settled that convicts, or those under execution by any process, civil or criminal, are not 
 entitled to the benefit of the writ. — [2 Pick. 172; 10, p. 434.] 
 
 Among the decisions of the New V'ork courts there are two reported which illustrate 
 precisely what would be the result of a writ oi habeas corpus in the case of a person un- 
 der arrest as a fugitive from justice or from bbor. One is Clark's case, in which the 
 Court of Error and Appeals of that State decided that — 
 
 " Where a person is brought on habeas corpus before a court or judge as a fugitive 
 from justice, by a warrant of the Executive of one State, on the requisition of the Execu- 
 tive of another State, the court or judge will not inquire into the probable guilt of the 
 accused. The only inquiry is whether the warrant under which he has been arrested 
 states that he has been demanded by the Executive of the State from which he is alleged 
 to have fled, and that a copy of the indictment or affidavit charging him with having 
 committed 'treason, felony, or other crime,' certified as authentic by the Executive de- 
 manding him, has been presented." [9 Wend. 212.] 
 
 The other is the case of a negro named Jack, arrested as a fugitive slave. In that case 
 the court said: 
 
 "In the case of a slave who has absconded frcm another State, the certificate of the 
 judge who heard the case on a writ of habeas corpus, delivered to the owner, is conclu- 
 sive, and a writ de honiine replegiando will not lie to trt tsie slave's riout to 
 FREKDOM." [12 Wend 311. Same doctrine, Wright vs. Deacon, 5 Serg. & Rawle, 
 Penn. Rep. «2.] 
 
 Again: the opponents of the fugitive slave law lay great stress upon the fact that there 
 is no right of appeal from the decision of the (Commissioners, and no trial by jury. The 
 very nature of the right which the Constitution has secured to the owners of slaves in 
 the reclamation of their property contemplates summary proceedings in its enforce- 
 ment Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, thus disposes of this 
 question : 
 
 " It is obvious that the proceedings for the delivery and removal of fugitives of both 
 classes contemplate s'tmmary ministerial proceedings, and not the ordinary course of 
 judicial investigation, to ascertain whether the complaint be well founded, or the claim 
 to ownership be established beyond all legal controversy. In case of suspected crimes, 
 the guilt or innocence of the party is to be made out at his trial, and not upon the pre- 
 liminary inquiry whether the party shall be delivered up. All that would seem in such 
 cases to be necessary is that there should be prima fade evidence before the executive 
 authority to satisfy its judgment that there is probable cause to believe the party guilty — 
 such as upon an ordinary warrant would justify his commitment for trial. And in the 
 case of fugitive slaves thlere would seem to be the sime necessity of requiring only priina 
 facie evidence of ownership, without putting the party to a formal assertion of his rights 
 by a suit at the common law." [Vol. iii, p. 675.] 
 
 No person can claim a right to take them and carry them away into slavery, but those 
 ■who can prove them to be slaves — who can prove it by such evidence as ought alone to 
 be held sullicient in a question of freedom or slavery This view of the case settles the 
 question of the burden of proofs. He who would seek to disturb the apparently rightful 
 condition of things, assumes the burden of proving his own right. The onus probandi 
 is thrown upon the claimant to prove his properly, and his right lo restitution 
 
 Now, in the case of fugitives from justice demanded by the Executive of one State 
 of the Executive of another, every one knows the proceedings are always suminary and 
 €x parte. There is no right of appeal and no trial by jury; and, if the requisition con- 
 form in all respects to the law, the only question to be determined upon the arrest is the 
 question of identity; and, for example, under the treaty of Washington, between the 
 United States and Great Britain, of August 9, 1842, persons suspected of crimes are to 
 be delivered up in the same manner, upon the same proof, and no more, to Briti.sh au- 
 thority for trial. These proceedings have caused no complaint, neither have they crea- 
 ted any alarm for the personal liberty of free white citizens of the Union. How, then, 
 is it that all this sympathy is aroused in the case of a negro who has escaped from his 
 master, and to whom the Constitution declares he "shall be delivered up!" 
 
S4 
 
 If any person be wrongfully arrested, it is very easy to try the question of freedom or 
 slavery by the verdict of a jury in the State whence it is alleged he was a fug, live from labor. 
 They have always had a fair and impartial trial. It has been decided by the < ourt of 
 Appeals of Maryland, that if a neuro slave, with the pcrniist^ion of his owner, takes up his 
 residence in another State, whither free or slave State, and returns to Maryland, the 
 owner cannot resume his property in him, either for the purpose of servitude within the 
 Slate or of sale to a citizen ol the Slate. [Bland vs. Bowling, 9 Gill & Johns. 19.] 
 
 In Virginia, in the case of Betty vs Horton, [5 Leigh Rep. 615,] the Court uf Ap- 
 peals of that Stati^ decided that where a citizen of MassacUusetls came to Virginia, and 
 was there married, and acquired two female slaves by the marriage, who were taken 
 with him on his return to Massachusetts, and there remainej while he was domiciled in 
 that State, by returning to Virginia and bringing the slaves with him, they were entitled 
 to their freedom under the nonimportation act of 1792. [^ee also PUai^ant's case; 10 
 Leigh, t)97, for same doctrine ] It was al.-io decided in that case that, as it appeared that 
 the two slaves were, under the Conslitution of that State, free persons in Massachusetts, 
 they were on that ground entitled to their freedom in Virginia. In Louisiana the Su- 
 preme (Jourt has decidetl, in the case of Lumsford vs (voquillon, that if the owner of a 
 Slav e remove him from Kentucky to Ohio, with the intention of residing there, the slave 
 becomes iu-o f>uto iree. 
 
 'i'he regard for liberty exhibited by ihe ("ourts of Justice is not confined to the non- 
 slavehdlding States. It is found in full vigor and energy in all of the •'Southern States. 
 Let us examine a few more oi the cases as adjudicated by the tribunals of the Southern 
 States A female slave was carried by her mistress iVoiii Louisiana to Frame. VV hen 
 the latter returned to Louisiana she brou.ht the girl back, as she supposed, to her former 
 condition of slavery; but the Supreme Court, in a suit brought by the girl to establish 
 her freedom, decided that " the fart of a slave being taken by ihe owner to the kingdom 
 of France, or any other country where slavery or involuntary servitude is not tolerated, 
 operates on the condition ol the slave, and produces iimiitdiute tmancipalwii.'''' This 
 is the case of Marie Louise vs. Marot, 9 Curry's Louis. Rep. 473. 
 
 What renders this decision more remarkable is that Lord Stovvell (then Sir ^^'illiam 
 Scott) decided the other way. In the ca.se of a slave whj was brought from the West 
 Indies to England, and afterwards carried bark by her master, the learned .fudge decided 
 that she was reinstated in her condition of slavery. This case was cited to the Judges 
 of Loui.-iiana, but they disregarded it. No Court of any free State could have taken 
 more liberal views of the law than those slaveholding Judges did. In .Missouri it is the 
 same The owner of a slave carried hor to Illinois, and there hired out for a few days, 
 and brought her back to Missouri. The slave sued for her freedom and recovered it. 
 [3 Miss. Rep 270 ] In Virginia it is .settled that the s./ne ytn'rtntss as in funns is not 
 required in an ad on for fi-Ledorti as in other cases. [Randolph R"p. 134.] Dothe^e 
 facts justify the allegation that a free black would stand no chance before a Southern 
 jury> 
 
 In the ease of negro David vs. Porter, [4 Harris & McHenry, Rep. 418,] the owner 
 hired the negro to a citizen of Pennsylvania. The negro afterwards returned to Mary- 
 land into the possession of the claimant; and on petition the General Court decided 
 that the hiring into Pennsylvania entitled the negro to his freedom. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Mode of surrendering Fugitives from Labor. 
 
 As the liCgislatures of several of the States had assumed the power of enacting laws, 
 prohibiting all State officers, under heavy penalties, from aiding in the reclamation of 
 fugitive slaves, it becomes the duty of Congress, with a view of carrying into execution 
 the solemn injunctions of the Constitution, to invest the power in the hands ot its own 
 othcers, by the appointment of C>)minissioners to adjudicate the rights of claimants to 
 tlieir slaves. And the State Courts have no jurisdiction under the act of Congress on 
 that subjec". — [Per Coulter, 10 Barr , 514; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs Prigg, 
 16 Peters] 
 
 It is contended that to clothe the United States Commissioners with concurrent juris- 
 diction with the judges of the circuit and district courts, in matters pertaining to fugitives 
 
25 
 
 from labor, is violative of the Constitution. This point is easily dismissed. The Su- 
 preme Court is the only court known to the Constitution. The circuit and district 
 courts are the mere creatures of law, and their jurisdiction and powers depend upon the 
 will of the National Legislature. They are the "inferior tribunals" contemplated by the 
 Constitution Now, Congress possesses the power undoubtedly to provide for the re- 
 rapture and delivery of fugitive slaves to their owners. It may, therefore, prescribe the 
 mode in which and extent to which the power shall be applied, and how and under 
 what circumstances the proceedings shall atford a complete prelection and guaranty of 
 the right which the Constitution has secured. [Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylva- 
 nia, 16 Peters, 5:39.] This has been done by Congress in confi-rring special powers on 
 the commissioners acting under the fugitive slave law. The object of enlarging their 
 powers — for they already had the power "to take acknowledgment of bail and affidavit," 
 both in civil and criminal causes, and exercised "ail the powers that any justice of the 
 peace or other magistrate of any of the United States exercise in respect to oilenders for 
 any crime or offence against the United States" — was "to afford reasonable facilities to 
 reclaim fugitives from labor." [See vol. 2, p. 679, vol. 3, p. 3;'0, vol 5, p. .516,*U. S. 
 Statutes at Large] 
 
 The creation of this tribunal is made a ground of serious objection to the constitu- 
 tional validity of the act of 1850. It is contended that the State tribunals should be 
 allowed to settle all contlicting rights between the claimant and the slave. This cannot 
 be done. It is believed that a measure of State legislation, withdrawing the whole sub- 
 ject matter from the action of the tribunal created by Congress, and iiivesiingthe ^tate ju- 
 diciary with the jurisdiction, would be an unauthorized assumption of power, because it 
 would attempt tu regulate the proceedings of the judicial tribunals of the United States. 
 It is a well settled principle, that Congress cannot confer a part of the judicial power of 
 the United States on States, magistrates, or officers. In the languagfc of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, [1 Wheaton, 304,] Congress cannot vest any portion of 
 the judicial power of the United ."tates, except in courts ordained and established by 
 itself, and by a well settled construction; in order to give courts and magistrates this 
 character, tiie persons filling the stations respectively, must be appointed and commis- 
 sioned by the Government of the United States under a previous act of (-'ongress. This 
 doctrine was maintained in the celebrated case of Martin and Hunter's Lessee, [I 
 Wheat., 304,] and has not only been lecognised in the Supreme Courts of the United 
 States, but by repe;ited decisions of the highest tribunals of various States. 
 
 We refer to a few of the cases in the State courts; and first, to the Commonwealth 
 vs Feely, Virginia Cases, 321. This was an indictment for robbing the mail, under 
 an act of Congress which gave, in express terras, jurisdiction to the State courts But 
 the Court of Errors in Virginia decided that they could not, under the Constitution, ex- 
 ercise it; and the whole court entered the following judgment; "The Court doth 
 unanimously decide that, as the offence described in the indictment in this case is crea- 
 ttd by an uct of Co'm/ess, the said Superior Court, beins^ a Stale court, hath no juris- 
 diction thereof " There is a cise, similar in principle, in Hall's Law Journal, 113, 
 United States vs. Campbell. See also the opinion of Judge Cheves, of South Carolina, 
 12 Niles' Register, 266, in ex parte Rhndas. 
 
 The same question came before the Supreme Court of New York, in United Statesry. 
 Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4. This was an action of debt, brought to recover a penalty of $150, 
 under the act of Congress passed August 2, 1813, for selling spirituous liquors by retail, 
 contrary to the provisions of that act, which, in terms, authorized the State courts to 
 take juiisdiction of offences committed under it. The court decided that Congress could 
 not invest them with such jurisiliction, and they dismissed the case. 
 
 The case of Ely vs Peck, [7 Connecticut Rep. 219,] was an action brought on a statute 
 law of the United St ;fes, to recover damages, which the plaintiff, as owner of a s'-hooner, 
 had sustained by the dereliction of the defendant. This act, also, in terms, conferred 
 jurisdiction of the subject upon the ."<tate courts; but the Supreme Court of (Connecticut 
 declined to act under it, holding that Congress cannot vest any portion of the judicial 
 power of the United States, except in a court ordained and established by itself, and that 
 the "State courts are not ordained and established by Congress, and are not amenable 
 to that body." 
 
 For the further discussion of these questions, we refer to Houston v^. Moore, 5 Wheat. 
 35; 3 Story's Com. 6-22-625; Sargent's Views of Constitutional Law, ch. 27, 8; 1 
 Kent's Com. 395, 405; United States vs. Bailey, 9 Peters, 328. 
 
26 
 
 No principle is belter settled, or more reasonable in itself, than that no State legisla- 
 ture can, in any manner, invest or interfere with the process of the courts of the United 
 States, or prescribe forms of proceeding under the laws of Congress Wagman vs. 
 Southard, in Wheat. 1; Bank of the U. S.vs. Halsted. ibid, 51; United States w. VVil- 
 son, 3 Wheat. Kep. 253; 3 Story's Com. 624, 5; 1 Kent's Com 391; Bean et al. vs. 
 Hanghton, 9 Peters, 31'9. 
 
 Where the law of Congress directs an officer to act, he must act according to law on 
 all matters where his duty is prescribed, so as to re.strain his discretion. The commis- 
 sioner declares whether the claimant comes within the law, on the evidence adduced be- 
 fore him. The duty is positive, by the command of the law, which no State authority 
 can supersede, or grant a dispensation from its performance. The essence of this pro- 
 ceeding is in the promptitude of the remedy; it is devised to create one where none ade- 
 quately existed; and it is administered so as to meet the ends of justice in a summary 
 manner. 
 
 The object of the law of 1850 was to invest the commissioners with full power and 
 authority to receive, examine, and decide upon the validity of the asserted claims for the 
 reclamation of fugitive slaves. Tlieir decision, within the scope of their authority, is 
 conclusive and final. Tf they pronounce the claim valid or invalid, their award in the 
 premises is conclusive. The parties must abide by it as the decision of a competent tri- 
 bunal. The attempt to arrest its decree by a State tribunal, or deny its conclusiveness, 
 is a manifest violation of the exclusive authority of Congress. It is doing that indirectly 
 which the law itself prohibits to be done directly. It is, in effect, impeaching collaterally 
 a sentence which the law has pronounced to be valid. 
 
 But it is objected, that the commissioners are required by that act to exercise judicial 
 power, and are, therefore, judges; and the Constitution prescribes that the judges who 
 may be called into existence by Congress ".shall hold their offices during' good beha 
 vioui, and shiill, at stated times, receiv e for their services a compensation which shall 
 not be diminished during their contirniance in ofl'ice. ' As these commissioners do not 
 hold their offices bv that tenure, nor receive such compensation as the Constitution pre 
 scribes it is clear thac if a court adopts the opinion that they are judges, they are 
 not constitutionally appointed, and their acts will be declared void, for want of lawful 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 What tenable ground is there for alleging that the commissioners are judges 7 They 
 are " to hear and dc/ermint" — what^ That the claimant of the fugitive has established 
 by competent testimony that be is entitled to the aid of the law in returning him to the 
 State whence he escaped. The commissioner's decision on this question is of no more 
 consequence or effect, in any ulterior proceeding, than that of a Justice of Peace who 
 commits a man to prison on a charge of theft or other crime. 
 
 The doctrine advanced by the enemies of the law would perhaps prove also that the 
 Federal Govern ment ought not to have the power of creating officers to operate in- 
 ternally — a position that would defeat all the provi.-iions o) the Constitution, ami all the 
 purposes of the Union. The iruth is, that no Federal Constitution can exist without 
 powers that in their exercise affect the internal policy of the component members. It is 
 equally true, that no Government can exist without a right to create subordinate officers 
 for those purpo.^^cs which proceed from, and concentre in itself The act of 18S0 is simple 
 and operative in its nature, general in its principle, and not at the disposal of a single 
 will. There can be little confidence in a security under the revisal of thirty diiferentde- 
 liberatives It must, once for all, be defined and established on the faith of all the 
 States, and not revocabU- by any, without a breach of the general compact. 
 
 Nob.xly objects to a State enforcing its own laws; all that is claimed is, that in exe- 
 cuting them, it .should not violate the laws of the Union, which arc paramount. Sic 
 ulere tmi ut alien uni non Itvdos. 
 
 Principles no less fundamental, and asserted by all writers, and sanctioned by univer- 
 sal assent, are the sovereignty of each Slate within its own territories; and that each 
 nation may regulate every intrrior interest without giving offimce, and without any ac- 
 countability to any other nation; what shall be deemed to be pro/ierfi/, and what shall 
 not be; the mode of acquisition, possession, or alienation, are all subjects which each 
 State reserves to itself The princijile cannot be questioned that every State has a right 
 to establish such police regulations as a regard to the peace, health, or security of its in- 
 habitants may render necessary. All quarantine laws rest upon this princi|)le. In the 
 C^aes of Ps'orris vi. Boston, and Smith vs. Turner, the Judges of the Supreme Court of 
 
27 
 
 the United States, in delivering their opinions, repeatedly declared the law to be as we 
 have stated. Chief Justice Taney said: 
 
 "I think it, therefore, to be very clear, both upon principle, and Ihf. authority of 
 adjudged cases, that the several States have a right to remove Irom among their people, 
 and to prevent from entering the State, any person, or class or description of persons, 
 whom it may deem dans^erous or injurious to the interests and welfare of its citizens; 
 and that the State has the exclusive right to determine, in its sound discretion, wiiether 
 the danger does or does not exist, free from the control of the General Government." 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Have the Legislatures of the States the power to prohibit the 
 ectjecution of a law emanating from the National Legislature ? 
 
 The powers of the Government again are the objects of attack, and some of them 
 most essential to its maintainance are denied to have been granted by the Constitution; 
 for if the powers of the Government can be curtailed and enervated, and its operations em- 
 barras-sed, a near approach may in this way be made to a state of anarchy, while the 
 form and semblance of government is still maintained. Finally, the desperate plunge of 
 defeating an act of Congress is proposed. Doctrines tending to the overthrow of the 
 Constitution were never broached with more boldness, and urged with greater vehe- 
 mence than during the last few years. 
 
 The position assumed by the opposers of the act of 18.50, for it is unaccompanied by 
 any reserve or qualification whatsoever, amounts in fact to nothing less than this, that both 
 branches of the Legislative department of this nation, including of course the Chief 
 Executive, who approved of the law of I80O, have manifestly been guilty of a derelic- 
 tion of duty, a palpable abuse of power, while in the exercise of their official functions. 
 
 An imputation of so grave and serious a nature is not, indeed, in so many words pro- 
 nounced against them, but as much as this is clearly implied by the whole of the pro- 
 ceedings of the Legislature of Vermont. If, according to the naked assertion of the act 
 of Vermont, which is wholly unaccompanied by any allowance for a palpable error of 
 judgment, the Congress of these United States have, on any occasion, been found to 
 exercise powers not conferred, nor even contemplated by the parties to the federal com- 
 pact, the inference would seem to follow^ of course, for all acts of a legislative body must 
 be supposed to have been the result of deliberation, that the usurpation of power was 
 perpetrated knowingly, intentionally. Indeed, we have been reluctantly led to the con- 
 clusion, in connection with the extraordinary measures, and still maintained by a ma- 
 jority of the people of that State, and in their hall of legislation, that it was, in reality, 
 their deliberation and intention to pronounce a sentence not less serious and severe 
 against the legislative action of the General Government. It is, from a due considera- 
 tion of all the circumstances of the case, that we are constrained to undertake, principally 
 with a view to the reversal of this sentence, a full review of all the reasons upon which 
 Vermont has based her action. In this connection, it may be useful to notice, very briefly, 
 the grounds on which not the leading politicians only, but the opposers of the law, have 
 attempted to justify the extraordinary proceedings that have been alluded to. It is as- 
 sumed, and accordingly it has been promulgated, as one of the first and lundamental 
 principles in their new theory of the Federal Government, that not one jot or tittle of 
 the sovenignty of the State was surrendered or compromised in any manner at the for- 
 mation of the Union. That a State has a right, of course, to be its own interpreter of 
 the laws of the Federal Government, and to be the judge, in the last resort, of their va- 
 lidity; that whenever a State, in its sovereign capacity, shall be pleased to pronounce that 
 the Congress of the United States have, in regard to any of their enactments, trans- 
 cended the authority delegated to them by the Constitution, all such acts must thence- 
 forth, so far at least as concerns the citizens of such State, be considered as utterly void and 
 ineffectual. Furthermore, it is assumed that such enactments are not only binding upon 
 all within the jurisdiction of the State, but conclusive, also, against all the authoiities 
 <rf the General Government. From thia novel and most extraordinary doctrine, it resulta 
 
28 
 
 as a consequence, that an act of the highest legislative authority of this nation, what- 
 ever may lie its scope or object, or however urgent, in reference eilher to the foreign or 
 internal aflairs of the whole people, may have been the caus-e of its adoption, when thus 
 brought into question, remains as it were iii uheyance at the commaml of a single State! 
 
 t>uch. in substance, appears to be the theory of State legislation which has recently 
 been promulgated, and is still maintained by the constituted authorities of a member of 
 tliis confederacy. We conceive that it would be a useless appropriation of time were 
 we to proceed any further on a course of reasoning, in order to demonstrate the utter 
 fallacy and impracticability of the doctrines adverted to, or to dwell any longer in con- 
 templating the consequences in which, should they be sustained, they must naturally and 
 necessarily mvolve the peace and safety of the Union. Their tendency, it is apprehend- 
 ed, is quite too obvious to require, or even to admit of argument cir illustration. They 
 manifestly go to resolve at once our present glorious system of National (iovernment into 
 its original elements, and would have, not for the present generation, but for pos'erity, 
 the fearful, if not utterly hopeless task, of building some frail and miserable fabric upon 
 its ruins 
 
 Since the adoption of the act of 1S50, one of the States of this Union has seen fit 
 to proclaim aloud throughout the land her displeasure on account of a certain prominent 
 measure of the National Government. She has been pleased to assign as the cause of 
 her act of nullification, that the highest legislative authority of the nation had assumed 
 to itself the exercise of unwarrantable power; and on this ground has, at length, 
 placed herself in the attitude of open defiance of the Constitution and the laws of the 
 land. 
 
 It is not less true, however, that whatever of sympathy or com misseration may have 
 been ft It for those on whom the act of IS.'iO operates, not a single other State m this 
 Union is united with her in sentiment, either as to the legal grounds of her complaint, 
 or the propriety of the measures to which she has seen fit to resort for redress. On the 
 contrary, in relation to both the one and the other, the voice of the people in the non- 
 slaveholding States, in their primary assemblies, in their halls of legislation, and every- 
 where, has been heard not in a tone of expostulation only, but of severe censure and re- 
 proof, to pronounce its decision against her. 
 
 Indeed, it requires but a cursory glance at that statute to discover, that the Legislature 
 has attempted obliquely to lay hold on a power which, if carried into execution, will 
 shock the spirit of the whole confederacy. For it claims complete ascendancy for the 
 State courts over the United States courts; rendering the decrees of the latter nugatory, 
 when under the act of 1850 they may be brought in conflict with the State courts. The 
 act of Vrimont authorizes the State courts to interfere. 
 
 The general scope and objects of the Constitution preclude, therefore, the idea that it 
 was the intention of the parties to it, that the States should letain their atisolute political in- 
 dependence, or that they po.ssess any rfght under it to annul the acts of the National Gov- 
 ernment. The same conclusions result with equal certainty from a viewofits paiticniar pro- 
 visions. Had it been intended that the States should possess the important power of an- 
 nulling or repealing, at discretion, the acts of the General Government, this power would, 
 undoubtedly, have been '-iven to them in express terms. It is nut even jiretended that the 
 Constitution contains any such express concession Not only is there no express con- 
 cession to this effect, but the idea that any thing of the kind was intended, is precluded 
 by several provisions of an opposite character. ''This Cumlilulion, uiul the laws and 
 treaties made in pursuance of it, are the sufjreme law of the land, any thing in the 
 constitution and laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding " By this provision, 
 any act of a ^'tate, whether performed in its sovereian or legislative capacity, pretending 
 to annul an act of the (Jeneral Government, is declared in advance to be null and void. 
 
 We think the State legislatures have no such power. The act of 1850 was enacted 
 by Congress for the purpose of carrying into effect a national object. It is therefore a 
 national measure, brought into exi.-ttnce by the exertion of the legi.slativc power of the 
 Union, and it would be monstrous if any State legislature could impede the execution 
 of a law made for national purposes, relative to a distinct matter over which the national 
 legislature have the exclusive right of 1< gis-lation. Congres-s have a right to judge of the 
 proper means of executing its laws; they have the power of directing those means by any 
 law not forbidden by the Constitution; and no State legislature can, consistently either 
 with the letter or spirit of the ('onstitution, interfere with the exercise of this power. It 
 is certain that the power itself is the power of the nation— that the whole Union are at 
 once the grantors, and, (by their representatives,) the depositories of it — the subject 
 
m 
 
 matter upon which, or with a view to which it is executed, is entirely a national object, 
 and ihat the sovereignty of Congress aver it was communicated for national ends. 
 
 As this dominion flows from the same source with every other power possessed by the 
 Government of the Union; as it is executed by the same Congress; as it was created for 
 the commoM good and for universal purposes; it is impossible that it should not be of 
 equal obliiration throughout the Union, in its effects and consequences, with every power 
 whatever known to the Uonstitution. 
 
 The pf)wer of the Union, constitutionally executed, knows no locality within the 
 boundaries of the Union, and can encounter no geographical impediments ; its march is 
 through thfi Union, or it is nothing but a name. The States have no existence relative- 
 ly to t!ie effect of the powers delegated to (Jongress, save only where their assent or in- 
 strumentality is required, or permitted, by the Constitution. In every other case, the 
 effect of constitutional Congressional legislation is commensurate with United America, 
 and Slate legislation in opposition to it is but a shadow. The States or the people can 
 only r< sist the natural effect of such Congressional legislation by resisting the exercise 
 of their own sovereignty, created upon high inducements of constitutional policy. 
 
 A casi! of this sort bears no analogy to that of one State repelling within its limits, by 
 penal sanction, the effect of the laws of any other State, upon consideration of local ex- 
 pediency, or otherwise. A State that repels the effects of the laws of another State, 
 within its territory, is no party to those laws; it has no direct interest in them — it did 
 not assist in making them, immediately, or derivatively, or constructively. It cannot 
 assist in repealing or modifying them. But here, the State law is its own law, as being a 
 member of the Union, although revocable by it without the concurrence of other States. 
 The effect is for its own advantage in the eye of the Constitution. It can contribute to 
 revoke the law by its representatives in Congress; and it is bound, by the constitutional 
 grant of power in virtue of which it has been enacted, since it participated in that grant, 
 as in every other grant of power, to the Government of the Union. It is proclaimed to 
 the community; it speaks for itself; and if it means any thing, it enunciates a rule of 
 public conduct, as a law, exacting the obedience of the people. 
 
 A tacit submission to pretensions thus lofty and comprehensive, but which we trust 
 are most of them untenable, would, we conceive, be an abandonment of rights openly 
 recognized, and a direliction of the most important interests of our country. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The power of Legislniing in regard to the Reclamation of Fugitire 
 Slaves is necessarily exclusive in Congress ; and the same power 
 cannot he ConstilutAonally exercised by the States. 
 
 The exercise of the power in question by the States, is totally contradictory and re- 
 pugnant to the power granted to the Congress of the United States. 
 
 This being the policy of the General Government, is not the possession of the power 
 by the States totally contradictory, and repugnant to the authority conferred on the 
 Federal Government^ What avails it that the General Government, in the exertion of 
 that portion of its power which embraces this subject, if the States in which the fugitive 
 is found may immediately reverse the action of the Government, and refuse to com- 
 ply with the demands of the law ' If the power remains in the States, the grant to the 
 General Government is nugatory and vain; and it would be in the power of any State in 
 the Union to overturn the adjudications of the agents of the Federal Government, upon 
 a subject admitted to be within its appropriate sphere of action, and to have been clearly 
 and necessarily included in the constitutional grant of power. 
 
 The power in question, from its nature, cannot be a concurrent one, to be exercised 
 both by the States and the General Government It must belong, exclusively, to the 
 one or the other. It is the power of deciding the very delicate question, whether the 
 fugitive demanded ought or ought not to be surrendered. Now it is very evident, that 
 the tribunals of the Federal Government and of the State may not always agree on this 
 subject. The decision would necessarily be repugnant to the Constitution. The thing 
 done would be in direct opposition to the supreme law of the land, which had command- 
 ed that it should not be done. This class of cases, where there is an express prohibi- 
 
30 
 
 lion, has no relation whatever to any conflict between the powers granted to the Fede- 
 ral Government, and those reserved to the State. Such a State law as we just supjjosed 
 would be equally repugnant to the Constitution, whether there was or was not any power 
 granted to the Federal Government over the subject on which such a State law operated, 
 'l^his class embraces, also, certain cases in which a power such as has been pieviously 
 exercised by the estates is granted to the Federal (government in terms which imjjort ex- 
 clusion. In such a case it has been held, that although there is no prohibition upon the 
 States, yet the terms ot the grant, by necessary construction, im|)Iy it^ because a prcivision 
 that one Government shall exercise exclusive [jower, is tantamount to a declaration that no 
 other shall; for if any other could, it would cease to be exclusive; and such a declaration is 
 therefore, in cDect, a prohibition. Here too, then, any action on the part of a State 
 upon a subject thus exclusively granted to the Federal Government, would be repugnant 
 to the Constitulton, operating by its own intrin>ic force. 
 
 The second class of constitutional provisions is where there is no express prohibition on 
 the States. V\ here there was no prohibition to the Slates, the exercise of such a power on 
 their part is inconsisleiU with the powers upon the same subject conferred on the United 
 States. 
 
 It is admitted, that an affirmative grant of a power to the General Government is not 
 of iiself a prohibition of the same power to the States; and that there are subjects over 
 which the Federal and State Governments exercise concurrent jurisdiction, liut where 
 an authority is granted to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States will 
 be absolutely and wholly contradictory and repugnant, then the authority of the Federal 
 Government must be supreme anil paramount. 
 
 That law must be paramount, from necessity, to avoid the confusion of adverse and 
 conflicting legislation. So far as the States are concerned, the power, when thus exer- 
 cised, is then exhausted. This is the rule as we under.-tand it, settled by authority, in 
 regard to the construction of the concurrent power of legislation in the Stales, and which 
 is conceded to be binding upon the State tribunals on questions arising under the Con- 
 stitution and laws of the IJnited States — ^ turges vs. Crowninshield, 4 U'heat. 193; 
 Houston vs. Moore, .5 ib., 1. See also Livingston vs. Van Ingen, 9 John R., 561, 5()6, 
 56H, .575; 13 Mass. R., 15; 3 Serg. and Rawle, 179; 1 Kent, 387; Steamboat Co. vs. 
 Livingston, 3 Cowen, 716, 751, 753. This principle is undoubtedly essential to peace 
 and harmony in the action of the two Governments. 
 
 The doctrnie distinctly maintained is, that all police laws are constitutional, unless in 
 conflict with some law of the United States. This opinion is full> sustained in the case 
 of New York vs. Mdn, 1 1 Peters, \0Z; and in the License cases, 5 Howard, 504: Com. 
 monwealth vs Kimliall, 24 Pick. 350. It is not legislation upon the same subject, or 
 every seeming conflict, that amounts to unconstitutional collision. The rule applicable 
 to collision is laid down with some distinctness in 1 Story's Com., 432: "Incases of 
 implied limitations ur prohibitim, it is not sufficient to show a possible or potential in- 
 convenience There must be plain incompatibility, a direct repugnancy, or an extreme 
 potential inconvenience, leading to the same result." 
 
 When we speak of concurrent powers, we mean when both can do the same thing; 
 but it is contended, that when the two powers under discussion were confined to their 
 proper sphere, not only the State authority could not do what could be done by Con- 
 gress, but the reverse is true; that is, that they never are nor can be concurrent powers. 
 It is not a concurrent power. A concurrent power excludes the idea of a dependent 
 power. Every concurrent or other power in a State is subject, in its exercise, to this 
 limitation, that in the event of a collision, the law of the Slate must yield to the law of 
 Congress constiUitionally enacted. New York vs. Miln, 11 Peters, 102; Commonweath 
 1-5. Kimball, '^4 Pick. 3.VJ. 
 
 In the language of the Supreme Court, in the case of Sturges vx. Crowninshield, 4 
 Wheat 196, "It is not the mere existence of the power, but its exercise, which is in- 
 coinj.alible with the exercise of the same power by the States." Uut in the same case 
 another principle is stated which is equally sound, and which is directly applicable to the 
 point under discussion; that is to say, that it never has been supposed that the concur- 
 rent power of Stale legislation extended to every possible case in which its exercise had 
 not been prohiliited. And that "whenever the terms in which a power is granted to 
 Congress, or the nature of the power requires that it should be exercised exclusively by 
 Congress, the subject is as completely taken from the State legislatures as if they had 
 been expressly forbidden to act on it." 'i'his is the character of the power in ques- 
 tion. 
 
31 
 
 - All powers of the States, as sovereign States, must always be subject to the limita- 
 tions expiessed in the United States Constitution, nor can they any more be permitted 
 to over.-tep such limitations of power by the exercise of one branch of s-overeignty thaa 
 another. What is forbidden to them, and what they cannot do directly, they should not 
 be permitted to do by color, pretence, or oblique indirection. Among other matters 
 limiting and restricting State sovereignty is this: 
 
 In the Blackbird Creek Marsh Company, the court held that a State law was not in- 
 valid merely because it made regulations of commerce, but that its invalidity depended 
 upon its repugnancy to the law of Congress, passed in pursuance of the power granted. 
 [3 Peters, 245; 11 ibid, 132; U ibid, 579; 16 ibid.] 
 
 if Congress has the power to regulate a subject matter, a State cannot interfere to op- 
 pose or impede such regulation The General Goverment, though limited, is supreme 
 on those objects over which it has power. [Martin vs. Hunter, 3(11 ; Cohen vs. Vir- 
 ginia, 6 Wheat :^84 ; Prigg j;s. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.] 
 
 The doctrine of State legislative interposition assumes the position, that the constituted 
 agents ofaStiite may arrest the execution of any law emanating from the National 
 Legislatiu'e. It maintains that a Slate may impose a fine or penalty on any person em- 
 ployed in the execution of any law of the United Mates The carrier of the mail, the 
 collector of the revenue, the marshal of a district, the recruiting oflicer, may all be inhib- 
 ited, under ruinous penalties, and may be arrested in the performance of their respective 
 duties This doctrine further as^erts, that each member of the Union is capable, at its 
 will, of attacking the nation, of obstructing its progress at every step, of acting vigorously 
 and ellectually in the execution of its designs, while the nation stands naked, denuded 
 of its ilefensive armor, and incapable of protecting its agents or executing its laws, other- 
 wise than by procpedings which are to take place after the mischief is perpetrated. 
 
 if the United States cannot rightfully protect the agents who execute a fuj^itive slave 
 law authorized by the Constitution, from the direct action of State authorities, in the 
 performance of their duties, they cannot rig ilfully protect those who execute any law. 
 
 It is a m:ixi:n applicable to the interpretation of a grant of political power, that the au- 
 thority to create must infer a power effectually to protect, to preserve, and to sustain. 
 [See McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 V\'heat. Kep., 4".i6.] It is no less a maxim, that the 
 power to create a faculty of any sort, must confer the power to give it the means of ex- 
 ercise. A grant of the end is necessarily a grant of the means. 
 
 All governments which are not extremely defective in their organization, must possess, 
 within themselves, the means of expounding as well as enforcing their own law. To 
 allow a State to arrest the execution of a law of Congress, would be equivalent to an ex- 
 punclion of the act from the statute book, and leave it dependent upon the fluctuating 
 will of the State legislatures, obeying or di-srejarding, at pleasure, this constitutional 
 provision, and giving or refusing operation to it, by enacting' or rei)ealing laws upon the 
 sulijoct, and thus changing a fixed, permanent, established, fundamental law, operative 
 or inoperative, as tlie legislatures might act. 
 
 And what must be the inevitable effect of all these various readings of the holy text, 
 under which different and discordant rights are claimed.'' No one can doubt it must be 
 civil war, a heart rending, interminable war, unless we are contentto return to the fold from 
 whence we shall have strayed, to come again within the pale of the Constitution, and 
 consent to be governed once more by the ancient rules which the necessities, not of one, 
 but of all, produced; which the wisdom, not of one, but of all, digested; and for the 
 preservation of which, unaltered by any, the peace and blessings of the union of all re- 
 quire the guarantees of each. 
 
 It is strange, nevertheless it is true, that something is continually occurring to hum- 
 ble the vanity of man with regard to his boasted intellect, and to draw a sigh of regret 
 from every reflecting bosum at witnessing the inability of human reason to contend with 
 human prejudice. That the weak, the vicious, and the ambitious, should be victims of 
 this prejudice, is too common an occurrence to excite surprise; but that the strong and 
 the enlightened should suffer the same kind of eclipse, is a practical lesson on human 
 infirmity, well calculated to teach humility to us all. Seeing, as we do every day, what 
 opposite conclusions are deduced from the same premises, and how much feeling is blended 
 with the best operations of our reason, what candid man is there among us who can ar- 
 rogate io himself the exclusive power to arraign the official conduct of others, and 
 pronounce their action as usurpatory and unconstitutional.' The friends of the law have 
 labored to look at the provisions of the act of 1850 as abstractedly and disinterestedly as 
 if they were to pass judgment upon it; and thus looking at it, they have read with 
 
S2 
 
 amazement the interpretations imposed upon it by those who advocate its repeat, and 
 been astonished at the feelings of horror expr«'psed by them at the contemplation of the 
 same feature vviiich has not at all disturbed the equinanimity of others How can we 
 account for this but on the presumption that there is some cloud of prejudice on the one 
 side or ihe other, which intercepts the view, and prevents us fron) seeing things as they 
 really are. The friends of the measure look in vain at the effects of the act for any thing 
 to justify those misrepresentations which have been so profusely poured forth in certain 
 sections of the Union, denunciatory of its provisions ; and its friends cannot see this de- 
 formity in the portrait. We are constrained to conclude that it exists only in the iinagi 
 nation of those who are unwilling that it shall remain on the statute bouk. 
 
 If the question of constitutionality of the law were one of doubtful con-itruction, such 
 long actjuiescence in it, such contemporaneous expositions of it, and such extensive and 
 unifurni recognitions would, in our judgment, entitle the (juestion to be considered at 
 rest. (Congress, the Executive, and the .ludiciary have, upon various occasions, acted 
 upon this sound and reasonable doctrine. [See Stuart vs. Laird, 1 (branch, 9o; Martin 
 ts» Hunter, 1 V\ heat. 20 t; (3ohen vs. The ( 'ommonweaith of Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264.] 
 
 If this decision of the constituiionality of the act of 1793 by the most august triliunal 
 in the land stood ui)on its own exalted authority ahme, it ought to command the respect 
 and obedience of all other tribunals, State and Federal, within the United States. For if 
 the Supreme Coort of the United States cwiiiol finally and definitively settle a drntro- 
 verted interpretation of a law of the United States, our admirable but complicated system 
 of free goveinment would be thrown into embarrassment as to the administration of jus- 
 tice, and its powers rendered perfectly nugatory In the celebrated case of l-*rigg ys. The 
 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Justice Story, who delivered the opinion of the Court, 
 expounded the law as follows: 
 
 "The same uniformity of acquiescence in the validity of the act of 1793 upon the 
 other part of the subject-matter, that of tugiiive slaves, lias prevailed th/outi/nnit the 
 wbolf Viiiun, until a comparatively recent j)erio<l. IN ay, being from its nature and 
 character more readily susceptible of being brought into conlrover.sy in courts of justice 
 than the former, and of enlisting in opposition to it the feelings and prejudices of some 
 portions of the non-slaveholding States, it has naturally been brought under adjudic:ation 
 in several States of the Union, and particularly in Massachusetts, i\ew York, and 
 Pennsylvania; anh on all thkse occasions its vALinirr has been ArFiioiED." 
 [Cited the cases of W right va. Deacon, 5 Serg. & Rawie, 62; Glen vs. Hodges, 9 Johns. 
 Rep C7; Jack. vs. Martin, 12 Wend. .507; and (Jom'th vs. Griffin, Pick. li, as cases 
 dircclly in point ] "So far as the judges of the courts of the United States have been 
 called upon to enforce it, and to grant the certificate required by it, it is believed that it 
 has been uniloimly recognised as a binding and a valid law, and as imposing a constitu- 
 tional duty." [Peters's Supreme Court Reports, vol xvi, p 539, ct seijuitur ] 
 
 The point of constitutionality fairly ro.se in the latter case, was elaborately discussed in 
 the argument, and was deliberately considered by the Court. 
 
 To impose restraints on State legislation, as respected this delicate and interesting sub- 
 ject, was thought necessary by all those patriots who could take an enlightened and 
 comprehensive view of the South, and the principle obtained an early admission into 
 the various schemes which were submitted to the Convention. In framing an instru- 
 ment which was intended to be per])etual, the pre>umption is strong that every important 
 principle introduced into it is intended to be perpetual also; that a principle cx[)ressed 
 in terms to operate in all future time, is intended so to operate. But if the construction 
 for which the agitators contend be the true one, the Constitution will have imposed a 
 restriction in language indicating perpetuity, which every State in the Union may elude 
 at pleasure. .^ 
 
 This act was approved of by President Fillmore and his distinguished Cabinet. This 
 Cabinet, who thus sup[)orted this law, have been denounced as derelict to their duty, 
 who sought the gratification of their personal views at the experi.se of the public good; 
 they have been lamjiooned and vilified by all the presses identified with the opposition to 
 this act. Their weight of character, the jiurity of their lives, the consistency of their 
 principles, and their force of reasoning, were alike unavailing. It was suflicieni that they 
 dared to ihink for themselves; to prefer what they regarded as the interests of tlie coun- 
 try, to the gratification of selfi.sh C')nsiilerations. To refuse a ready acquiescence in what 
 was re(|uired of them to do by the opposers of the law, they felt themselves at liberty, 
 without at least understanding the questions involved, to misrepresent their acts and im- 
 pugn iheii motives. 
 
33 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Propositions submitted to Congress with a view of giving additional 
 securities to Slaveholders. 
 
 Monday, October 31, 1791. 
 Ordtred, That a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill or bills pro- 
 viding the means by which persons charged in any State with treason, felony, or other 
 crime, who flee fro<n justice, shall, on the demand of the Executive authority of the 
 State from which they fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having juris- 
 diction of the crime, under the laws thereof, and persons held to service or labur 
 in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall be delivered up on 
 claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due; and that Mr. Sedgwick 
 and Mr. Bourne, of Massachusetts, and Mr. White, of Virginia, be the said committee. 
 [See House Journal, 1st and 2d Cong. 1789-1792, p. 444.] 
 
 Wednesday, December 21, 1796. 
 
 Mr. Patton moved that the report of the committee on commerce and manufactures 
 made last session, respecting the iiidnapping of negroes and mulattoes from ditferent 
 States, contrary to the laws of said States, shall be committed to the committee of the 
 whole house. [See Carpenter's Debates, page 141.] 
 
 The case of stolen goods would apply the same as negroes; they were looked upon, 
 in the States where slavery was permitted, as iridiuidual property; therefore he (bought 
 the stealing in one case would apply to the other. [See speech of Edward Livingston, of 
 New York, Carpenter's Debates, page 172.] 
 
 There are laws in some of the States, Pennsylvania for one, that will not suffer slaves 
 to be taken out of one State into another. [See speech of Mr. Swanwich, of Pennsyl- 
 vania, Carpenter's Debates, page 174.] 
 
 Thursday, December 29, 179fi. 
 
 Mr. Murray, of Maryland, proposed the following resoution: 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire if any, and what, alterations are 
 necessary in the act, entitled " An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons es- 
 caping from their masters," which was ordered to lie on the table. — See Carpenter's De- 
 bates. On Monday, January 2d, 1797, the resolution was agreed to, and a committee 
 was appointed of Messrs. Murray, Cooper, and Kittera. 
 
 Monday, January 2, 1797. 
 
 Mr. Swanwich moved, that the report of the Committee on Manufactures on the 
 subject of kidnapping negroes and mulattoes should be recommitted to that Committee, 
 with instructions to report by bill or otherwise. 
 
 On motion, the question was decided. " Shall the report be recommitted to the Com- 
 mittee of Commerce and Manufactures?" Carried — ayes, 46. 
 
 Friday, December 11, 1801. 
 On motion — 
 Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of amend- 
 ing the act entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from 
 the service of their mastcrsj" and that said Committee be authorized to report by bill or 
 otherwise. 
 
 December 18, 1801. 
 Mr. Nicholson, from the Committee appointed, according to order, rejiorted a bill 
 to amend the act entitled '* An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escap- 
 ing from the service of their masters;" which was received and read the first time. 
 
 January 18, 1802. 
 The House resumed the consideration of the amendments, on the 15th instant, from 
 the Committee of the Whole House, to the hill to amend the act entitled an act respect- 
 ing fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service ol their masters. It 
 9 
 
84 
 
 passed in the negative — yeas 43, nays 56. Those who voted in the affirmative from the 
 non-sliiveholdiiig States are, Lucas Elmrndrof, of New York; Elmer, of New Jersey; 
 Joseph Heister, Penn.; Michael Leib, Penn.; John P. Van Nesa, David Thomas, of 
 Kew York. 
 
 FniDAT, July 21, 1817. 
 The bill from the Senate, entitled «« An act respecting the transportation of persons of 
 color for sale, or to be held to labor," was read the fust and second times, and committed 
 to the Committee on the African slave trade. 
 
 Saturday, Febhuary 22, 1817. 
 Mr PicKETiiNG, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on the African slave trade, 
 to which was committed the bill from the Senate entitled " An act respecting the trans- 
 portation of persons of color, for sale, or to be tield to labor," reported the same with- 
 out amendment. Not acted on. [See House Journal, 2d scss, 1 4th Congress.] 
 
 Monday, Februay 22, 1819. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill respecting the transportation of per- 
 sons ot color for sale, or to be held to labor. 
 
 Oil motion of Mr. Fuomontix, that the further consideration thereof be postponed 
 until the 4th day of March next, it was determined in the negative — yeas 7, nays 'i^. 
 
 Those who voted in the negative are, Burnett, of Rhode Island; Daggett, of Con- 
 necticut; King, of New York; Lacock, of Pennsylvania; Miller, of Massachusetts; 
 Otis, of Massachusetts; Sanford, of New York. 
 
 On the question of engrosi^ment, it was determined in the alfirmative. [See Senate 
 Journal, 2d sess. 15th Congress, pp. 291, 292, 297.] 
 
 Tuesday, January 15, 1819. 
 On motion of Mr. Pindall, it was- 
 
 Re.-iolved, That a committee be appjinted to inquire into the expediency of providing 
 by law (or delivering of persons held to labor or service, in any of the States or Territo- 
 tories, who shall escape into any other State or Territory; and that the said Committee 
 have leave to report by bill. 
 
 Mr. Pindall, Mr. Anderson, of Kentucky, and Mr. Bcecher were appointed the said 
 Committee. 
 
 January 16, 1819, reported the bill. [See House Journal, 2d sess. 15th Congress.] 
 This bill was not acted on. 
 
 Saturday, March 18, 1820. 
 On motion of Mr. Anderson, of Kentucky, it was— 
 
 Re.sdved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of providing 
 by law more ellectually for reclaiming persons held to service or labor in one State, and 
 escaping therefrom into another State. 
 
 Mr. Anderson, Mr. Pindall, and Mr. Dickinson, of New York, were appointed the 
 said Committee. No further action. 
 
 The attention of the representatives from Maryland wa-* called, by resolution of the 
 Legislature, to the growing evil under which many of the citizens of that State labored 
 from the countenance and protecti )n which their fugitive slaves received from the autho- 
 rities of the adjacent States. In obedience to this resolution, Mr. Wright introduced the 
 following proposition, which was reftrred to the Judiciary Committee, consisting of three 
 members from non-slaveholding States, Messrs. Sargeanv, ol Pennsylvania, Dickinson, 
 of New York, and Whipple, of New Hampshire. 
 
 Monday, Dbcmiber 17, 1821. 
 Mr. Wrioiit submitted the following proposition, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appomted to inquire into the expediency of providing 
 by law more effectually to protect the rights of those entitled to the service or labor of 
 persons in.one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, and for their delivery 
 to their rightful owners, agreeably to the provisions of the Constitution." 
 
 It was on motion of Mr. Campbei.l, ot Ohio, referred to the Committee on the Ju- 
 diciary. '[See House Journal, 1 sess. 1 7th Congress, p. 62.] 
 
36 
 
 Januaut 14, 1822. 
 
 Mr. Skrcjeakt, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom the subject had been 
 referred, reported a bill to provide for delivering up persons held to laborer service in any 
 of the States or Territories, who shall escape into any other State or Territory; which 
 was read the first and second times, and committed to a committee of the whole house 
 to-morrow. [See House Journal, 1st sess. 17th Congress, p. 143. See bills. No. 35.] 
 This bill contains provisji)ns equally as stringent as the bill of 1850. 
 
 f^' Section seven of the bill reported by'Mr. Sergeant fixes the same penalties for ob- 
 structing or hindering any officer in seizing and arresting a fugitive as the act of 1850. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition 
 
 of Slaoery. 
 
 FninAT, Febhuart 12, 1790. 
 
 The memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition of slavery, was 
 presented to the House, praying " that Congress may take such measures in their wis- 
 dom, as the powers wilh which they are invented will authorize, for promoting the aboli- 
 tion of slavery, and dhcouraire evfrij species of traffic in slaves. This memorial was 
 referred to Mr. Foster, Mr. Huntington, of Connecticut, Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, 
 Mr. Lawrence, of New York, Mr. Sinnickson, of New Jersey, Mr. Hartley, of Penn- 
 sylvar.ia, and .VIr. Parker, of Virginia. [See 1st and 2d Con., 1789 92, v. 1, p. 180.] 
 
 This (Committee reported, " that Congress, by a fair const met' on af the Constitu- 
 tion, are equally restrained from interfering in the emancipation of slr.ves, who already 
 are, or who may within the period mentioned, be imported into, or born within, any of 
 the said States." Again they say, "that Congress has no authority to interfere in the 
 internal regulations of particular States, relative to the instruction of slaves in the prin- 
 ciples of morality and religion; to their comfortable clothing and acco'.nmodations, and 
 subsistence; to the regulation of their marriages, and the prevention of the violation of 
 their rights thereof" 
 
 The povjer being granted under the authority of Congress, to regulate the reclama- 
 tion of fugitive slaves, the Second Congress which assembled possessed plenary, supreme, 
 and exclusive power over the whole subject of prescribing the means for the accomplish- 
 ment of the purpose designed by the law. Many of the great men who formed the 
 Constitution were members of Congress for many years succeeding its adoption. Why, 
 then, did they never exercise, or ever propose to exercise the power of repeal upon the 
 ground of its unconstitutionality. They were called upon by memorials, immediately 
 after the organization of the Government, to interfere, both as amr>ng the States and as 
 to foreign nations with the subject of slavery. Why did they not attempt its abrogation' 
 Because it was then unanimously acknowledged that Congress possessed such a power. 
 
 In 1794 memorials were transmitted by the Quakers and others to Congiess, calling 
 on that body to exercise all its constitutional power over the subject; and these memo- 
 rials were referred to a committee of the House, consisting of Mr 'J'rumbull, of Con- 
 necticut, Mr. Giles, Mr. Talbot, and ?Jr. Graves, all members from iion-slaveholding 
 States, except Mr. Giles, of Virginia; the Select Committee were favorable to the pro- 
 po-iition of the memorialis'.s. The Committee ofl'ered no measure of repeal, but brought 
 in an act " to prohibit the slave trade from the United States to any foreign place or 
 country." [2d vol. Laws of U. States, 383, Bioren's edition.] 
 
 These priiceedings, sustained by Mr. Giles's statement, as a member of the committee, 
 ought 10 be conclusive. In the debates of the Virginia Convention, of 1829, 1830, p. 
 34G, we find Mr. Giles using the following language: "A'.r. Ciile.s then referved to a 
 memorial which was presented to Congress by the representatives of several societies of 
 Quakers. He happened to be a member of the committee to whom the subject was re- 
 ferred. He had relied on the declaratory resolution, in the negotiation which he had to 
 ■carry on with the Quakers. All the committee were, in principle, in favor of the mea- 
 
36 
 
 gure; but it was his duty to satisfy these persons that Congress had no right to interfere 
 with the subject of slavery at all. He was fortunate to satisfy the Quakers, and they 
 agreed th:it if Coni^ress would pass a law to prohibit the citizens of the United Stales 
 from supplyini; foreign nations with slaves, they would pledge themselves and the respec- 
 tive societies they represented never again to trouble Congress on the subject. The law 
 did pass, and the Quakers adhered to their agreement. He did not know whether or 
 not the doiiunieiits on the subject of this negotiation were still in existence, but he be- 
 lieved they had been tiled away with other papers." 
 
 N'jW, no less than thirty laws have been passed by Congress on the subject of the 
 slave trade, and no less than seven propositions have been submitted to its consideration 
 in relation to the recapture of fugitive slaves, from 17 91 to the present jieriod; yet no 
 one propo.^ilion suggests the idea that Congress, in enacting the law of ITJi, transcended 
 its legitimate powers, either directly or by implication. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The Slave Trade prohibited by the CGnstitution. 
 
 This was the second compromise. The non importation article recognizes the insti- 
 tution of slavery; it was etfecleJ by the deliberate action of the Convention. The com- 
 mittee who lecommcnded this compromise consisted of Messrs. Rutledge, of iSouth Caro- 
 lina, Randolph, of Virginia, Wilson, of Pennsylvania, Ellsworth, of (Jonneclicut, and 
 Gorham, of Massachusetts. This commitlee, it will be recollected, were to reduce to the 
 form of a C-onstitution the resolutions agreed on by the Convention. This committee 
 inserted in their draft the following clause: ">{o tax or duty shall be laid by the legisla- 
 ture on articles exported from any iStaie, nor on the tuigration or iinjjorf.dton of such 
 persons as the several Stales shall think jjroper to admit, nor shall such migration or im- 
 portation be /yw//(7>;7<t/." 
 
 Tiie migration or importation embraced in it is, in the debates, uniformly and plainly 
 called the slave trade by certain Souihern ^tates, which the Convention would have 
 abolished by the Constitution itself but for the avowed necessity of propitiatiiiiij these 
 States by its toleration for twenty years. There, too, it will be seen ihat .Mr. Uoverneur 
 Morris, with a frankness and sagacity highly creditable, objected to the ambiguous lan- 
 guage in which the section was prepared and adopted. He said he was for making the 
 clau.se read at once "the importation of slaves into North Carolina, South Carolina, 
 and Georgia shall not be prohibited, &c." This, he said, was most fair, and would 
 avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to importation, the liberty 
 reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished it to be known, also, that this part 
 of the Constitution was a compliance with these States. [3 Madison Papers, 1427 t.nd 
 1478.] 
 
 Judge Iredell, the leading member of the (Convention, from North Carolina, thus ex- 
 plauis this section, when submitted to the State Convention: "The Eastern States, who 
 long ago have abolished slavery, did not approve of the expression slaves. They there- 
 fore usfcd a lother term which answered the same purpose. * * The word niiiirition 
 refers to free persons, l>ut the word importation refers to slaves, because free persons can- 
 not be said to be imported." [3 Ell. Deb., 1st ed. page 978.] 
 
 The word "migration" was added to "importation" to cover slaves when regarded as 
 persons rather than property. It was intended by the mass of the Convention as em- 
 bracing "slaves," and calling them "persons," out of delicacy. [-^ Elliott's Debates, 
 457, 477; 3 ih. 251, 541; 4 ib. 119; 15 Peters, 113, 506; 11 ib. 13'i; I Black. Com. 
 by Tucker, append. 290.] It was so corsidercd in the Federalist soon afti r, and that 
 ▼iew regarded as a " misconstruction." [Federalist, No. 42.] So afterwards thought 
 Mr. Madison himself, the great expounder ot the Con.stitution. [3 Elliott's Deb , 4^2.] 
 The Eastern J^tates, notwithslanding their aversion to slav-ry, were very willing to 
 indulge the Southern Mates, at least with a temporary liberty to pro.secute the ^lave trudt, 
 provided the Southern States would, in their turn, gratify ihem by laying no restriction 
 on ntmgutlon ads,- and after very little time, the c(.m:nittee, by a very great nrij'irity, 
 agreed on a report, by which the General Government was prohibited Irom preventing 
 
37 
 
 the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restrictive clause relative to naviga- 
 tion acts was t:j be omitted. [See Secret Debates, 64.] 
 
 The framers of the Constitution were unwilling to use the word slaves in the instru- 
 ment, and described them as persons, and so describing them, they emjiloyed a word 
 that would describe them as persons, and which had uniformly been used when persons 
 were spoken of, and also the word which was always applied to matters of property. 
 The whole control of the sentence, and its provisions and limitations, and the construc- 
 tion given to it by those who assisted in framing the clause in question, show that it was 
 intended to embrace those persons only who were brought in as property. 
 
 In the debates which ensued on this clause, Mr. Ellsworth, one of the committee who 
 reported it, was for leaving the clause as it now stands. "Let etkht St.'.te ihiport 
 WHAT IT PLEASES- The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to 
 the States lhem.selves. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the 
 best judges of their particular interests. The old confederation had not meddled with ^ 
 this point, and ho did not see any greater neo ssity for bringing it within the policy of 
 the new one." [Madison Papers, p. 1339, i:<9l.] Mr. Wilson, another member of 
 the committee, objected: "All articles imported," said he, "are to be iaxed; slaves 
 alone are to l.e exempted. Thi? is, in fact, a bounty on that article." This clause was 
 referred to another committee, who modified it, by limiting the restriction to 1801). It 
 was moved to guarantee the slave trade for twenty years, by postponing the restriction 
 to 1808. This motion was seconded Iny Mr. Gorham, another member of the commit- 
 tee. Mr. Randolph, also of the committee, was against the slave trade, and op; osed to 
 any restriction on the power of Congress to suppress it. Two of the committee, then, 
 we find, were against the slave-trade; and three, Messre. Rutledge, Ellsworth, and Gor- 
 ham, for perpetuating it. The inducements which prompted the action of Mes'srs. 
 Ellsworth and Gorham to yield their consent to the proposition, were of the most ele- 
 vated character. They wished to throw no impediments in the formation of the Con- 
 stitution. What was the language used by the chjirman of the committee and others 
 in the convention'' Said Mr. Rutledge, "If the convention thinks North Carolina, 
 South < arolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to this plan, (Federal Constitution,) un- 
 less their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The peo}ile of 
 these States will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest." Said 
 Charles Pinckney, "South Carolina can never receive the plan (of the Constitution) if 
 it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powtrs of Congress, 
 that State has expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation 
 of negroes" [Madison Papers, p 1389.] 
 
 Mr. Madison answered these objections, as urged by Governor Randolph and others, 
 as follows: "I should conceive this clause to be impolitic, if it were one o\' those things 
 which could be excluded without encountering greater evils. TJie Son,/ em Slates 
 would not have entertd into the Vniivi of Annrica, without the temporary permission 
 of that trade. And if they were excluded from the Union, the consequences might be 
 dreadful to them and to us. Vie are net in a worse situation than before. That traffic 
 is prohibited by our laws, and we may continue the prohibition. The Union in general 
 is not in a worse situation. Under the Articles of the Confederation it might be con- 
 tinued forever, but by this clause an end may be put to it after twenty years. There is, 
 therefore, an amelioration of our circumstanc s. A tax may be laid in the meantime, 
 but it is limited, otherwise Congress might lay such a tax as would amount to a [prohi- 
 bition. From the mode of representation and taxation. Congress cannot lay such a tax 
 on slaves as will amount to manumission." 
 
 The acts prohibiting the slave-trade, also may be referred to, which recognize slaves 
 as property. It was protected by the Constitution, and exempted from the whole force 
 of legislative power. The principle, by which the South enjoyed the bemfilsof this 
 trade, was protected by the Constitution, formed a basis of our representative system, 
 entered into our laws, and mingled itself with the sources of authority. [See 4 vol. 
 Laws of U. States, p. 96, 98.] 
 
 The liberty to import, implies unqualified liberty to sell, or hold possession of, at the 
 place of importation. This is the argument in all its amplitude. In other word.*, the 
 act of prohibition encouraged the importation. These propositions, it is believed, can 
 be vindicated either by the legitimate meaning ol the words, or the theory of the ctmsti- 
 tutional powers of Congress. Where importation may have been made with the direct 
 view to sell or hold possession, does it not follow, by necessary induction, that permis- 
 sion for the former implies permission for the latter i* 
 
38 
 
 TuEsnAT, Decembeii 17, 1805. 
 
 The Senate resuncd the motion made yesterday for leave to bring in a bill to prohi- 
 bit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United 
 States; and the yeas and nays I'cing required on the main question by one-fifth of the 
 Senators, it passed in the atfiraiaiive — yeas 13, nays 9. 
 
 Those who voted in the negative were Adanvs and Pickering, of Massachusetts, and 
 Tracy, of Connecticut. 
 
 So leave was t;iven to bring in the bill. 
 
 WEDifESHAr, February 5, 1806. 
 On the bill laying a duty on slaves imported into the United States, on the question 
 for the indefinite postponement — yeas 42, nays 69 — ; See House Journal,) the follovving 
 members voting in the afiirmative: KichaiJ Cutts, Ebenezer Ehiier, New Jersey; VVm. 
 Findley, James Fisk, Andrew Gregg, John Lambert. Michael Leih, John Rea, Penn- 
 sylvania; David Hough, New Hampshire; Nehemiah K .ight, Joseph Slaiiton, Rhode 
 Island; Mathew Lyon, Jeremiah Morrow, Ohio; Gideon Olin, Vermont; Leaven, 
 Massachusetts; Thos Simmons, New York; John Cotton Smith, t^'onnecticut; David 
 Thomas, Philip Van Courtland, William C. Van Rensselaer, Henry W. Livingston, 
 Guhan C. Verpianck, Samuel Riker, New York; Henry f^outliard, New Jersey; Jacob 
 Crowninshieid, William Sherman, Massachusetts; Roger Griswold, Connecticut; Fred- 
 erick Connor, Joseph Heister, John Stewart, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Wedxesday, Jaxuart 7, 1806. 
 
 The House resumed the consideration of the amendments reported I>y the Committee 
 of the Whole House on the twenty ninth ultimo, to the bill to prohibit the exportation 
 or bringing of slaves into the United States or the Territories thereof, after the thirty- 
 first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seven. 
 
 A motion was then made by Mr. Bin well further to amend the third section of the 
 said bill in the following jiiragraph, to wit, '' and such ship or vessel, if brotiirht into 
 any purl or place wthin a IStdfe or Territory, the constiiut on and laws of which pro- 
 hibit shivery, sh ill, logrlher with her cargo, tackle or apparel, and fu/oifure, be for- 
 feited," by sinking oni from the said parajjraph the word "cargo;" and on the ques- 
 tion thereuj)on, it passed in the negative — yeas 39, nays 77. 
 
 Those who voted in the negative from non slaveholding States are, Messrs. (^onrad, 
 and Gregg, of Pennsylvania, Davenport and Uriah Traiy, of Connecticut; Elmer, of 
 New Jersey; Martin Chittenden, of Vermont; Henry VV. Livingston, Van Cortland, 
 Van Rensselaer, and Verpianck, of New York; Josiah Quincy, of .Massachusetts; Henry 
 Southard, of New Jersey; ^amuel Tenney, of New Hamp.shire [See House Journal, 
 vol. 5, 3(1 and Uth Congress, page ."ilS.] 
 
 Another motion was made by Mr. Bidwell; and the question being put further to 
 amend said hill by adding to the e;:d thereof the following proviso, " Proridt-d, that no 
 person >h(ill be -old ns a slave by rirtuc of th's act," it passed in the negative — yeas 60, 
 nays GO; the Speaker declaring himself with the nays. 
 
 Aincmg the nays we find Samuel Tenney, of New Hampshire; U. Tracy, of Con- 
 necticut; V'an (/'ortland, Van Rensselaer, Verpianck, Wadsworth, and H W. Livings 
 ton, of New York. [See House Journal, h vol. 8th and 9th Congress, page Tila.] 
 
 The bill laying a duty on slaves imported into the United States being under consid- 
 eration, and the question being on the indefinite postponement thereof, it was negatived: 
 yeas 42, nays 69. 
 
 For more than twenty years the slave trade was protected by the Constitution— it was 
 viewed by the South as a valuable privilege, and one that was made a prelnninary matter 
 in the adjustment of the controveited questions which convulsed the Convention. Para- 
 doxical as it may appear, the principles on which this compromise was adjusted consti- 
 tute the very bond of our glorious Union. 
 
39 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Taxation and Apportionment of Representation. 
 
 The Congress, acting under the ("onstitution, have sanctioned the ri.ht of slavery by 
 providing for the enumeration of slaves for the purpose of taxing them, and making the 
 tax a lien on them as property. — See vol. 3, Laws of U. States, Bioren's edition, pages 
 34, 100, 10^. The Eastern members of the Convention proposed it, they sustained it, 
 and they moulded it to their mind. In 1798 and 1799, when it was necessary to lesort 
 to direct taxes to support the q<i(isi war then waged against France, this species of popu- 
 lation was taxed as property. The same sort of taxation was levied during the late war 
 with England. This property has afforded revenue to carry on these wars; in the latter 
 six hundred thousand dollars was annually received upon slaves. 
 
 By the (Constitution, slaves are not only property as chattels, but political property, 
 which confers the highest and most sacred political rights of the States, on the inviola- 
 bility of which the very existence of Government depends. 
 
 The apportionment among the several States of their representatives in Congress. 
 The apportionment of direct taxes among the several States. 
 
 The number of electoral votes for President and Vice President, to which they shall 
 be respectively entitled . 
 
 The basis of this right is, "according to their respective numbers, which shall be de- 
 termined by adding to the whole number of free persons, iudiidins; thos' bound to ser- 
 vice for a term of years, and excluding Indians, not taxed, ihree Jift'is of all other per- 
 sons." So for all these great objects, five slaves are, in federal numbers, equal to one 
 freeman of the North. 
 
 In that article of the Constitution, the word person is used as synonymous with "hu- 
 man being and inhabitant." The Constitution, in the second section of the first article 
 provides that "representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several 
 States according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to 
 the whole number of free persons, including those bound for a term of years, three-fifths 
 of all other persons." 
 
 TheVord persons was unquestionably substituted for slaves. The words free persons, 
 including those bound to service, embraces all the inhabitants or human beings of a 
 State, save slaves; and the delicacy of the framersof the Constitution avoided sedulously 
 the introduction of the word slave, and embraced them under the general term of other 
 persons. 
 
 After the formation of the Constitution, it was objected to its ratification that slaves 
 ought not to give to their masters an increased representation, for "slaves are considered 
 as property, not as person.^; they ought, therefore, to be comprehended in the estimates 
 of taxation, as property, and be excluded from representation, which is regulated by a 
 census of persons." In confirmation of these views, we refer to the 54th number of the 
 Federalist, to show Mr. Madison's views in combating the objections taken by the non- 
 slaveholders to that feature of the Constitution by which three-fifths of the slave popu- 
 lation are added to the free population of a State in relation to its representation in Con • 
 gress. In reply to this, he argued, in that number, that it was true that slaves were 
 considered as property; but they were also considered as somethuig more than property, 
 they were considered as. moral persons, liable to be punished for crime, as members of 
 society. 
 
 Let us examine who fixed this apportionment. It was done by members of the Con- 
 vention of the Eastern States Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, proposed that the rights of 
 suffrage ought to be proportioned to the qaotas of contribution. .Mr. Madison, of Vir- 
 ginia, made a proposition for an equitable ratio. It was then moved by Mr. Rutledge, 
 seconded by Mr. Butler, to add to the words, "equitable ratio of representation," at the 
 end of the motion just agreed, the words, "according to the (juotas of contribution." 
 On motion of Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, seconded hy Mr. Pinckney, of . South Car- 
 olina, this was postponed, in order to add aftei the words, "equitable ratio of repicsen- 
 tation," the words following: "in proportion to the whole number of white or other free 
 citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex, and condition, including those bound to ser- 
 vitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons, not comprehended in the 
 foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State." This was fol- 
 
40 
 
 lowed by a proposition by Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey, of the same import. Upon 
 revising this proposition with others, the Committee of Revision was Mr. Johnson, of 
 Connerticut, Mr. Hamilton, of New York, Mr. Morris, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Madison, 
 of Virtjin a, and Mr. Rufus King, of Massachusetts. The committee adopted the pro- 
 positions of Judge Wilson and Mr. Patterson, and formed that clause of the Constitu- 
 tion which regulates the representation and direct taxes. 
 
 The next compromise was between the small and large States. The one claimed and 
 the other refused, an equality of suffrage in the nitional legislature. It was agreed that 
 the suffrage should be equal in one house, atid according to population in the other. 
 This was the basis of the compromise. Then came the question, what should consti- 
 tute the representative population^ The Southern States had more slaves than the 
 Northern, and the former insisted that slaves should he included in the representative 
 population. This, it was contended in the Convention, would give the Southern States 
 an u"fiir preponderance in Congress. To reconcile the North to slave representation, 
 it was offered that direct taxation should be proportioned to representation. This ar- 
 rangement of political power was accet'ed to. Mr. Davie, of North Carolina, made a 
 "deliberate declaration:" "He was sure Nortli Carolina would never confederate on any 
 terins that did not rate them (the slaves) at least at three-fifths. If the Eastern Stales 
 memt, therefore, to exclude them (the slaves) altogether, the business was at an end." 
 [Mai'ison Papers, p. 1081] The compromise of three fifths of the slaves to be included 
 in the re[)resentative population, was accepted on motion of a New Englnwl int-nlier. 
 
 It was attempted to exclude the Southern portion of the Confederacy from the right of 
 representation of three-filths of the slaves within the Union. It cannot be concealed, that 
 this subje.-t was surrounded by difficulties, and originally presented important impedi- 
 ments to the Union. It was contended then, that this unfortunate race of beings, degraded 
 alike by intellect and condition, could not be considered above the anitnals which labored 
 by their side; that they were not admitted by their owners to any share of political power 
 in the States where they resided; that they could not, therefore, with propriety, be en- 
 trusted, by any participation in power, with the rights of freemen; that, in short, they 
 should be regarded as property, not as perso/i--. 
 
 It was then answered, that in the ^tat(•s not burdened with this species of inhabitants, 
 the general principle of the confederation was, to apportion representatives among the 
 States according to inhabitants; that if the Southern States choose to give their slaves 
 the privilege of votintr, or placed them on the footing of bound servants, they would be 
 entitled to representation according to their full numbers; and that the refusal to their 
 slaves of that privilege was like the qualification of property required in some of the 
 States, a mere municipal regulation, with which the Union had no concern. 
 
 Thus reasoned the framers of the Constitution. They thf)Ught wisely, that slaves 
 were to be partly as property, and p'^rtly as persons; and that it wouhl be unjust to 
 condemn their owners to taxation without some indemnity. They therefore compro- 
 mised their conflicting opinions; they agreed to consider that three-tifths of this species 
 of j)roperty should enter into the computation of representatives. 
 
 "The fir.st thing objected to, is that clause which allows a representation for three- 
 Jiflhs i>f /fie nfgroe''. Much has been .said of the impropriety of representing men who 
 have no will of their own. Whether this be reasoning or declamation, I will not pre- 
 sume to say. It is the unfortunate situation of the Southern Slates, to have a great part 
 of their population, as well as property, in blacks. The regulation complained of 
 was one result of the spirit of accommndtit Urn wliicli governed the Convention; and 
 without this indulgence, no Union could possibly have been formed." [See Alexander 
 Hamilton's speech in the ("onventinn of New York, to ratify the Constitution of the 
 United States, Elliot's Debates, page 212.] 
 
 Messrs. King, Gore, Parsons, and Jones, of Boston, spoke of the advantage to the 
 Northern States by the rule of apportionment given to them; as also Judge Dana. [See 
 Elliott's Debates in the .Massachusetts ('onvention.] 
 
 On the question of the adoption of these clauses of the (constitution, the vote stood thus: 
 
 Affirmatively— Massachu.setts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
 Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia — 9. New Jersey, Delaware— 2. 
 [Sec 2 vol. Madison's State Pajiers] 
 
 .Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey, remarked, "He could regard slaves in no other light 
 but as property." 
 
 .Mr. Kufus King, of Massachusetts, said, "That eleven out of thirteen States had 
 agreed to consider slaves in the apportionment of taxation." 
 
41 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Slmes recognised as Property by the Judiciary Act of 1789. 
 
 The great in jniry then is, whether a slave is private property? The slave is liable to 
 be seized and sold for debts; if an individual attempt feiiiniously to take possession of 
 him, the ovcner can recover him by an action of detinue or trover; to maint.in either of 
 which actions two things are necessary: first, that the object claimed should be a person- 
 al chattel; and next, that the party claiming should have a property in it. It is admit- 
 ted, that it is the law of the United States. This we will endeavor to establish. By 
 the thirty-eiahtli section of the Judiciary act it is enacted, that the laws of the several 
 States, except where the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States otherwise 
 require or provide, shall be "regarded as the rules of decision at common law in the 
 Courts of the United States, in cases where they apply." What is this but adopt- 
 ing, as the laws of the United Stales, all the constitunonal laws of the several States' 
 Are they not, uy this section, incorporated into, and made a part of the jurisprudence of 
 the Union? Maryland, by a similar enactment, has made of force as much of the com- 
 mon law of England, as is consistent with her Constitution. Now, is not that common 
 law of El gland made, by that enactment as much a part of the code of Maryland as 
 her legislative statutes? This proposition cannot be doubted. The laws of tht siiveral 
 States, adopted by the Federal Courts, are as much then the laws of the United States 
 as the act of Congress. In which light, then, have the courts of the United Mates con- 
 sidered slaves? Precisely as those of Maryland — as mere personal chattels — as legally, 
 nothing more than goods, wares, and merchandize, and liable to all the rules which gov- 
 ern the possessiopi and alienation of inanimate chattels. To prove this let us refer to a 
 case originating in the (Jircuit Court of Georgia, but finally decided in the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. [See the case of Williamson vs. Daniel, reported in the 
 12th vol. of Wheaton, page 568.] The substance of this case is as follows: A testator 
 left by will sundry slaves to A and B, with a provision, if either should die without law- 
 ful heirs of his body, the survivor should have the estate. The following was the decree 
 of the Court pronounced by Chief .Justice Marshall: " We think these words convert 
 the absolute es ate previously given irto an estate tail; and if so, since staves fire person^ 
 at property, the limitation over them is too remote." It is an old maxim of the com- 
 mon law, \hat an estate tail cannot be created in a [ ersonal chattel; for if it he, the pre- 
 viou.^ estate becomes absolute in the first taker. This rule applies to all property of a 
 moveable nature — to money, goods, wares, and merchandise — to domestic animals, &c. 
 Do not the above points establish the principle, that the Supreme Court of the United 
 States view the slaves precisely in the same light as the State Courts-- that it considered 
 the slave no more than a personal chattel, in which an absolute property may ve.st, and 
 liable to all the rules which attend chattels of that description. The same principles 
 have been decided in another case brought up from the Circuit Court of Teimessee 
 to the Supreme Court of the United States. [See Shelby ra. Grey, llth Wheaton, 
 page 361.] To understand this case it is only necessary to give the jireliminary 
 statement of Judge Johnson, who pronounced the decree of the Court. "The 
 plaiiititr here were defendants below in action of detinue, brought by Thomas Grey 
 to recover sundry slaves. The defendants filed non dttinet, and the act of limita- 
 tions of the State of Tennessee, which was the act of detinue, is three year ." Can 
 it be contended, that slaves are not viewed by the Courts of the United States as 
 private property, as nothing but personal chattels, by these two cases? In the first 
 they are disposed of by will, liable to become the property of the first owner when 
 the limitation over is after an indefinite period; and in the second case, they are re- 
 coverable by action of detinue, and become the absolute property by the holder after 
 possession of three years. It is thus we find that the highest judicial authority known 
 to the people of the United States have decided, that a slave is a legitimate chattel. So 
 much for the decisions of the United States Courts on this subject. In these opii ions 
 every member of the bench concurred. 
 
 But let us now consider the light in which slaves have been viewed by Congiess in 
 levying a direct tax. 
 
 The acts of Congress relating to the assessment of lands, &c., and slaves, have been: 
 "An act to provide for the valuation of lands and dwelling houses, and the enumeration 
 
42 
 
 of slaves within the United States,"' July 9, 1799, ch. 70; "An act to amend an act 
 entitled 'An act to provide for the valuation of lands and dwelling house?, and the enu- 
 meration of slaves within the United States,' " February 28, 1799, ch. 20; "An act 
 supplementary to an act entitled 'An act to provide for the valuation of lands and dwel- 
 ling houses, and the enumeration of slaves within the United States,' " January 2, 1800, 
 ch. 3; "An act to provide for comp!i'tin<^ the valuation of lands and dwelling houses, 
 and the enumeration of slaves in t«outh Carolina, and for other purposes," January 30, 
 1805, ch. 11. 
 
 We will now advert to the act of 1813 imposing a direct tax. This act was ratified by 
 James Madison. No man was better acquainted with all tlie provisions of the Constitution, 
 their relations and dependencies, tliah this illustrious statesman. 'J'he Hth section of 
 that act reads as follows: "That wl)enever a direct tax shall be laid by the authority of 
 the United States, the same shall be assessed and laid on the value of all lands, lots of 
 ground, with improvements, dwtilmg hoiin'S and slave-i, which several articles subject 
 to taxation, shall be enumerated and v.ilued by the respective assessors at ike rait tack 
 of the 771 is worth in money." 
 
 Could Congress have employed words more emphatic, more minutely descriptive, to 
 signify that a slave was private property, than are contained in the at)ove section' Is 
 there any distinction made in it belwem lanrtt: and slaves ? Each ^^ liab't to fit taxed, 
 the tax is to be assessed on the value of each, and the value to be estimated by the worth 
 of each in money. 
 
 Again : let us advert to the 24th section of the same act, and this idea is still more 
 strongly expressed — is depicted in still more glowing colors. •' That where any tax, as 
 afore.-^aid, shall have remained unpaid for the term of one year, as aforesaid, the collec- 
 tor in the State where the propely lies, and who shall have l)een designated by the Sec- 
 retary, as aforesaid, having first advertised the same for ninety days in at least one news- 
 paper in the State, shall proceed to sell at public sale, so much of said property as may 
 be necessary to sali.^fy the tax due thereon, together with an addition of twenty per cent, 
 thereto. If the property advertised for sale cannot be sold for the amount due thereon, 
 with the aforesaid additions, the collector shall purchtse the same in behalf of the U/i ted 
 States for the amount aforesaid." 
 
 Now, here Congress not only expressly admits that a slave is pioperty, but directs the 
 collect r til putchdse the slave in their behalf, if he is not bid up to the value of the tax 
 imposed, and thereby bee >mes a slaveholder. The Congress of the United States, by 
 the adiiption of this act acknowledges, in the plainest and strongest language, that it 
 will not only t ix shivi.s, or other properly, but that it will sell and purcha.'ie them. 
 
 On the passage of the bill it was determined in the affirmative, yeas 27. Those who 
 voted in the .iffirmative from the non-slaveh<dding States are, Chase, of Vermont; Con- 
 dit, of New Jersey; Gorman, of New York; Gore, of Massachusetts; Howell, of 
 Rhode Islnnd; King, of i^ew York; Lacock, of Pennsylvania; Morrow, of Ohio; Var- 
 num, of Massachusetts; Robinson, of Vermont. [See Senate Journal, 1st session 13th 
 Congress, page 105.] 
 
 On the jiassage of the same bill in the House of Representatives, those who voted in 
 the affirmative from the non-slaveliolding States are, Comstock, Denoyelles, Fisk, 
 and Sage, of New York; Davis, (Crawford, Findley, <.'onrad, Chas. J. ingersoll, Ing- 
 ham, Rea, Seybert, Smith, and Wilson, of Penn.-ylvania ; Fisk, of Vermont; and John 
 McLean, of Ohio. [See House Jcnunal, 1st session 13th Congress.] 
 
 The extradition of criminals or slaves, escaping from one country to another, has 
 generally been considered a matter of comity and not of right. There is no general 
 prmciple in the laws of nations which would require a surrendei in such a case. The 
 remarks of the Supreme Court, in regard to the surrender of captured slaves, in the 
 Amistad case, were made with a reference to our treaty with Spain. 
 
 This Government is under no obligation, nor has it the power to surrender, on the 
 demand of any foreign Government, any individual, unless such surrender is stipulated 
 by treaty; nor is any such inhabitant punishable by the laws of the United States for acta 
 committed beyond their jurisdiction, the case of pirates alone excepted. This is a fun- 
 damental rule of our system. It is not, however, confined to us^ it is believed to be the 
 law of all civilized nations, where not particularly void by law. 
 
 In support of these views and principles see 4 Johns, ch. rep. )>. 106; United States 
 vs. Davi.s, 2 >uinner, p. 482, per Justice Story; Writings of Jefferson, 3 vol. p. 131; 
 1 vol. Aiu. State Pai)ers, p. 145; and 2 Brock, p. 504; 14 Peters S. C. Rep., p. 574, 
 Holmes vs. Jansen. 
 
43 
 
 The stipulation in the Spanish treaty, by which we were bound to restore the ships 
 and effects or merchandise of Spanish subjects, when captured within our territorial 
 jurisdiction, or by pirates on the high seas, applies to the surrender of slaves by the 
 States. Hero is a solemn compact between sovereign powers, not less sacred, than 
 the constitutional compact between the States stipulating for the restoration of slaves or 
 merchandise. 
 
 We were bound to deliver up the slaves according to the treaty of 179-' with Spain, 
 which has, in this particular, been continued in full force by the treaty of 18 9, ratified 
 in 1821. The ninth article provides, "that all ships or merchandise, of what nature 
 soever, which shall be rescued out of the hands of any pirates or robbers on the high 
 seas, shall be brought into some port of either State, and shall be delivered to the cus- 
 tody of the officers of that port, in order to be taken care of, and restored entire to the 
 true proprietors, as soon as due and sufficient proof sliall be made concerning the prop- 
 erty thereof" In exposition of this article of the treaty, Judge Story says: "If these 
 negroes were, at the time, lawfully held as slaves under the !aw-< of Spain, ai.d recog- 
 nized by those laws as pr')perty capable of being lawfully bough' and sold, we see no 
 reason why they may not justly be deemed within the intent of the treaty, to be included 
 under the d-noininutio'i of merchandise, ami as such ought to be restored to the claim- 
 ants; for, upon that point, the laws of Spain would seem to furnish the proper rule of 
 interpretation " See The United States vs. The Amistad, 15 Peters, o93. 
 
 In construin? this clause of ths treaty, the Attorney General says that "this case is 
 clearly within the spirit and meaning of the 9lh article, and that the vessel ani> cakgo 
 SHOULD BE RKSTOiiED ENTIRE, as far as practicable. See Gilpin's opinion — Attorney 
 General's opinion in the Ami.stad case. 
 
 Let us see who voted for the ratification of these treaties. 
 
 Thursday, March 3, 1796. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the treaty between the United States and His 
 Catholic Majesty. 
 
 On motion that the Senate agree to the following resolution, 
 
 Resolvtd, (two thirds of the Senators piesent concurring therein,) that the Senate do 
 advise and consent 1o the ratification of the treaty between the United States and his 
 Catholic Majesty, concluded on the 27th of October, 179. . 
 
 On the question to agree to the resolution, yeas 26. Those who voted in the affirm- 
 ative are, Bingham, of Pennsylvania; Blood woith, of North Carohna; Bradford, of 
 Pennsylvania; Brown, Burns, of New York; Butler, Cab it, of Massachusetts; Ells- 
 worth, of Connecticut; Foster, of Rhode Island; Henry Martin, King, of New York; 
 Langdon, Latimer, Livermore, of New Hampshire; Martin, Mason, Paine, Potts, Rob- 
 inson, of Vermont; Ross, of Pennsylvania; Strong, of Massachusetts; Tazewell, Trum- 
 bull, t'onnecticut; Vining and V\ alton. 
 
 On the motion to ratify the treaty of 1819, Messrs. Burrill, Daggett, Dana, Dickin- 
 son, Edwards, King, of New York, Lacock, Miller, Morrow, Noble, Otis, Roberts, 
 Sanford — all from non-slaveholding States. [See Executive Journal, vol- o.] 
 
 February 15, 1821 — the treaty or 1821. 
 
 On the question, will the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of this treaty, 
 it was determined in the affirmative: 
 
 Those who voted in the affirmative from non-slaveholding States are. Chandler, of 
 Maine; Dana, of Connecticut; Durham, of New Jersey; Edwards, of Connecticut; Cole- 
 man, of Maine; Hunter, of Rhode Island; King, of New York; Knight, of Rhode Island; 
 Lanman, of Connecticut; Lowrie, of Pennsylvania; Mills, of Massachusetts; Morrill, of 
 New Hampshire; Noble, of Indiana; Otis, of Mas>achusetts; Palmer, of Vermont; Par- 
 rott, of New Hampshire; Roberts, of Pennsylvania; Ru:2;'gles, of Ohio; Sanford, of New 
 York; Southard, ot New Jersey. See Executive Journal, vol. iii, page 178. 
 
 At an antecedent period in the history of this country analagous principles prevailed 
 and controlled the action of the (Congress of the United Slates as regards slaves being 
 considered as nterchondise. 
 
 The word merchandise is nomen generali.ssimum, and comprehends every description 
 of property. It is the appellative which will take in the whole species, if there be noth- 
 ing to narrow its scope. Theie is no such limit. There is not a syllable in the con- 
 text of the 9th article to restrict the natural import of its phraseology. The word 
 merchandise is left to the force of its generic signification, and is, therefore, as extensive 
 
44 
 
 as personal property can be. It embraces all the descriptions of property which it could be 
 supposed this Government could find it necessary to incorporate in our s}steti) of laws. 
 It covers the whole j;round which appertains to the recognition of slaves as property. 
 These views seem to be supported by the action of Congress in 1792. 
 
 On the I9th day of April, 1792, the (constitution of the tState of Kentucky was 
 formed. On the 6th of November, 1792, General Washington, then President of the 
 United States, dehvered his annual address to the two Houses of Congress, in which he 
 said: *' I'hc adoption of a constitution for the State of Kentucky has been notified to 
 me. The Legislature will share with me the satisfaction which arises from an event 
 inteiesfiug to the happiness of the part of the nation to which it relates, and conducive 
 to the general order." And on the succeeding day he transmitted to the two Houses of 
 (-ongrcss, in a special message, "a copy of the constitution formed for the State of 
 Kentucky." 
 
 On the 9th of November, 1792, the Senate of the United States responded to the 
 address of the President, in which they say, "the organization of the Government of 
 the State of Kentucky, being an event peculiarly interesting to a part of our fellow- 
 citizens, and conducive to the general order, affords us peculiar satisfaction." On the 
 Kith of November, 1792, the House of Representaiives res{)onded through a committee, 
 of which Mr. Madison was chairman, to the address of the President, in which they 
 say: "The adoption of a (Constitution for the State nf Kentucky, is an event in which 
 we join in all the satisfaction you have expressed. It may be considered as particularly in- 
 teiesting, since, besides the immediate benefits resulting from it, it is another auspicious 
 demonstration of the facility and success with which an enlightened peo]jle are capable of 
 providino^, by free and deliberate plans of government, for their own nafety and happi- 
 ness." This c(mstitution contains a provision that " they (the Legisbiture) shall have 
 full power to prevent slaves from being brought inio tins Stale as iittrchandise. [I Lit- 
 tell's Laws of Kentucky, 52 ] Hence is this constitution, with this clause recognising 
 slaves as mercliandisc, thus solenmly sanctioned, almost cotimpornneou^ly with the or- 
 ganization of the Federal Government, by George Washingtoti, President of the (Con- 
 vention which formed tlie (Jonstitution of the Union, and by John Langdon and Nicho- 
 las Gilman, of New Hampshire; Rufus King and Eldridge (Jerry, of Massachusetts; 
 Roger ^heiman and Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut; Jonathan Dayton, of New Jer- 
 sey; and Robert Morris and Thomas Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania. It must be re- 
 marked, that they were members of the Convention which framed the Constitution of 
 the United States, and all of them sanctioned and adopted the constitution of the State. 
 
 On the 1st of March, 1817, an act of Congress was passed to enable the people of 
 (he western part of the Territory of Mississippi " to form a Constitution and •-tate Go- 
 vernment." [6 Laws United States, 175.] On the 4th of December, 1817, this Con- 
 stitution tras suhmUt'd to both Hi-msrs of C'mgres><; [See Senate Journal, page 21; 
 House Journal, 21;] and on the 10th of December, 1817, the State was received as a 
 member of the Union; this constitution contained the clause, that "they ; the Legislature) 
 shall have full power to prevent slaves from being brought into this Sta^e as menhan- 
 dise." The constitution of the State of Missouri was formed on the 19th day of July, 
 1820, in pursuance of an act of (Congress of the 6th of March, 1820. [See (ith vol. 
 Laws of the United States, 455.] This consiitution contained the followmg among 
 other provisions: first, the General Assembly shall not have power to pass laws for the 
 emancipation of slaves without the amsnii nf thtir owners; but they shall have the 
 power to prohibit the introduction of any slave for the purpose of ^pvculition, or a^ an 
 article of trade or inerclumdise On the 2d of March, 1821, < "ongress passed a joint 
 resolution providing for the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union. [See 6 
 vol. Laws of the United States, 390.] 
 
 On the Wxh of January, 1836, the people of the Territory of Arkansas formed a 
 constitution which contained the following clause: "They (the Legislature) shall have 
 power to prevent slaves from beini^ brouglit to this State as vterchriiuHse." On the 
 10th of March, 183fi, this constitution was "submitted to the consideration of Con- 
 gress," in a special message by the President. [Senate Journal, 210 ] On motion of 
 Mr. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, in the Senate, on the same day, it was referred to a 
 Select Committee. On the 2-'d of March, \>Zf), Mr. Buchanan, as (Jhairman from 
 the Select Committee, reported a bill for the admission of Arkansas as a State, under the 
 constitution submittetl by the President; and after a full discussion, the bill pa.ssed the 
 Senate bi^ a vote of thirty one to six, fifteen of those who voted in the afHrmative being 
 from non slaveholding States, and four of those who voted in the negative being from 
 
45 
 
 the non slaveholding States. Such were the proceedings in the Senate; and in the 
 House the Constitution of Arkansas was sub nitted, and she was admitted as a State on 
 the 13th of June, 1836, by a vote of 143 to 50. [House Journal, 1003.] Nor was the 
 matter passed by in silence; for whilst the bill was pending, Mr. Adams moved to strike 
 Out from the bill that portion of it in re^^ard to slaves and slavery, (p. 997,) but it was 
 not seconded; and the constitution if Arkansas was confirmed and iiccepted, with this 
 clause included. 
 
 Here, then, are several States, whose Constitutions were adopted by Congress, and 
 admitted at all those periods, with clauses in all of them, as to the exclusion of slaves as 
 merchandise. Is not this a full recognition of the principles for which we have con- 
 tended in regard to this species of property ? 
 
 But this is not all. A more recent act of Congress may be adverted to as settHng the 
 question as to property in slaves. Persons formerly in the reputed limits of the United 
 States, but according to the demarcation of the boundary line between the United States 
 and the Repii'olic of Texas, were found to reside, in 1840, within the limits of Texas, 
 were allowed, by an act of Congress, to remove with all their "■ nioveahle proptrty into 
 the United Siaks." Approved June 15, 1844. See United States Statutes at J^arge, 
 vol. v, p. 674. 
 
 According to our analysis of this act of Congress, the terms "moveable properfi/" in- 
 cluded slaves. Furthermore, it authorized the importation of slaves from a foreign terri- 
 tory. This act was passed before the annexation of Texas to the United States. 
 
 We will now animadvert upon a negotiation which produced considerable excite- 
 ment in the Southern part of this Confederacy, and which threatened to disturb our 
 friendly relations with Great Britain. 
 
 The Execuive of the United States sanctioned the right of slavery when they nego- 
 tiateil and concluded a treaty stipulating an indemnity for the slaves carried into British 
 colonial ports 
 
 In 1830, two American vessels, the Comet and Encomium, freii;hted with slaves, 
 were carried by irrepressible necessity, into British colonial ports. The slaves on board 
 of these vessels were protected by the British authorities, and left at full liberty to go on 
 to their destined port and fate, or to remain where they were. A large portion of them 
 chose the latter course. A demand for indemnity was urged upon the British Govern- 
 ment, which, after much delay and negotiation, at last announced iti? intention to make 
 com pen.sation for the slaves. [See Senate Documents, 1838, 18-39, vol. iii, i\o. 216.] 
 
 Thi' argument in favor of the indemnity rested upon the fact that the negroes were 
 carried to Nassau by an irrepressible necessity, and that being characterized as property 
 by the American law, that character, under that law, ought to remain attached to them; 
 and that, by the law and comity of nations, the owners were entitled to British aid in 
 securing their property, and that the authorities had no right to interfere in behalf of the 
 slaves. 
 
 Lord Palmerston resisted the indemnity upon the ground that slaves, coming within 
 British jurisdiction, they being persons, acquired rights inconsistent with the claims of 
 the owners, which rights the British Government is bound to respect. [See Lord Palm- 
 erston's letter to Mr. Stevenson, January 7, 1S37, Senate Documents, 1838, 1839, vol. 
 iii. 210, p. 14.] 
 
 These principles were denied by Mr. Forsyth, who was Secretary of State during the 
 administration of .Mr. Van Buren. He contended "that the question of property must 
 be decided by some other law than the municipal law, to which the owner has never 
 submitted himself." [See Senate Documents, 1838, 1S39, vol. 3, No. '.^16, p. 5.] Mr. 
 Stevenson, minister to the Court of St. James, also declared that it was necessary to 
 show, before the British position can be supported, "that human beings cannot be the 
 subject of property any where, or to any extent." [Ibid, p. 19.] The t^ecretary of State 
 further maintained that the United States would assert the same rights, in cases like the 
 present, in the ports of England, as in those of her colonies. Such are the views, as 
 advanced by Mr Van Buren, through the ofiicers of the Government selected by him to 
 conduct the negotiation to a successful termination, and to receive inde/imili/ fur slaves 
 then under the jurisdiction of Great Britain. Now, what is this claim tor indemnifica- 
 tion but an assertion of tlie right of property on the part of the owners.' The right of 
 property is the basis of the claim. If the functionaries of the colonial ports had surren- 
 dered the negroes, no claim for compensation could be established against the English 
 Government. In other words, they claimed the surrender of the negroes; failing in that, 
 they claimed indemnity. 
 
46 
 
 Extracts fi-om Mr, Van Barer? s Despatch. 
 
 "Should it, however, be deindcd that His Majesty's Government is unable to com- 
 ply \vith this request, in consequence of the actual landing of the slaves on the Is- 
 land of New Providence, through the illegal seizure nf them by the custom house offi- 
 cers, and of the application to their case of the general principles of the English law, or 
 should it be declared that it was the intent of the act of Parliament, through luotivts of 
 humanitij, to give Jreedom to every slave landing on t'le coast of the Briti^^h colony, 
 whether cast upon it by shipwreck, or brought thither by design, or without reference to 
 his previous conditiim, or the manner in which the owners interest in him was ac- 
 quired, the undersigned is persuaded that the justice of the British Government will take 
 care that tlie property of the citizens of a friendly nation, thrown by shipwreck on 
 their coast, shall not, under circumstances like those of the present case, be sacrificed by 
 any misconstrued application of British laws, or by any indulgence of their own feel- 
 ings- of philanthropy; but that all suitable coaipi.nsation will be made to such indi- 
 viduals for th'' property taktn <r detained from them. 
 
 "The claimants will not require that any implied faith to the slaves by the act of the 
 Governor of the Bahamas shall be violated; they will, therefore, be content with a 
 moderate valuation, much less than that put upon the slaves by the Legislative Assem- 
 bly of New Providence." [See Senate Documents, 2d Sess , 24th Cong., vol. 2, No. 
 174.] 
 
 From a fair analysis of this correspondence, it appears that Mr. Van Buren relied on 
 the doctrines that prevailed in the English Admiralty Courts, in adjudicating upon the 
 right of properly acquired by the prosecution of the slave trade. This, it may be re- 
 marked, is the principle which has always been contended for by those who own this 
 species of property. It must be conceded, that this kind of property owes its existence 
 to the municipal laws of the State in which slavery is tolerated or sanctioned; accord- 
 ingly it has bee'i decided by the Admiralty Courts, that wliere ships of olher nations en- 
 gaged in the slave trade have lieen captured by British cruisers, if the slave tiade was 
 allowed by the laws of the nation to which the vessel belonged, the vessels and slaves 
 have been restored to the owners. [The Amelie, 1 Acton, 240; the Fortunal, 1 Dod- 
 son, 61; the Diana, I Dodson, 95; Le Louis, 2 Dodson, 238; Ma(!rago iw- Willes, 3 
 Barr. & Aid., 358; 1 Mason, 45. i$ee, also, the Antelope, 11 Wheaton.] These ad- 
 judications are based upon the laws of nations. What are the principle.- established by 
 this correspondence? They are reducible to two heads: 1st. That slavery is recognised 
 in this country as a legal institution. 2d. That the cargo of slavc-^ on board of the 
 Comet and Ljicomium, having reached a foreign jurisdiclion which declared them free, 
 the colonial authorities should have restored them to their owners or the insurance ofH- 
 ces located in New Orleans, because they belonged to a section of country which sanc- 
 tioned the iiislitutKui of slavery. Then let us apjily this doctrine to property belonging 
 to the South, and seeking shelter and protection in adjacent communities. Before the 
 establishment of the Constitution, the right of a slave wherever fourd existed in the 
 common law, or customary law, of nearly every Slate in the Union; for all the States, 
 excepting only Massachusetts, then recognized slavery as a legal institution existing within 
 their borders, the subject of it as property. The owner then might follow and seize his 
 slave and take him away, as he might seize and take his horse, or any other article of 
 personal property. Now the eflect of the constitutional provision allowing the recap- 
 lure ol fugitive slaves, and we may infer its object, was two fold. Il extended this right 
 of recapture, which existed by the common law of most of the States, to all of them, 
 and prohibited any from changing or modifying it by legislation. If Mr. Van Buren was 
 justifiable in demanding lhe.se slaves upon the ground of national comity, have not the 
 South the same principles (o rely on, when they claim the exercise of a power of de- 
 manding of a sister the surrender of th^^ir property under the constitutional compaet.^ 
 
 This docirine has ilie auihoriiy of the highest Courts of .Tudicaiure in Gieat Briiain 
 and of the Supreme Court of the United Slates ; and is sanctioned by the authority of 
 the most eminent judges and civilians in this or the inoiher country, including Sir VVjl- 
 liam Scott and Chief Jufrtice Marshall. It is recognised by the State Legislatures, (in- 
 cluding Pennsylvania) who before the existence of the Federal Constitunon obolished 
 slavery ; by the act of Parliament of 4 & 5 William, 1833, abolishing slavery in the 
 West Indies ; by ihe writers on the Civil Law ; by Vntiel in his Treatises on the Laws 
 of Nations, [B. 2, chap. vi. page 160;] and by Mr. Wheaton in his Treatkie on Inter- 
 national Law, [part 4, chap. i. page 339-40, id. 177 to 187.] 
 
47 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Slaves recogmsed os Property by the ratijicaliov. of the Trea- 
 ty of Peace at Ghent, and the sti/ruhttions contained in said 
 Treaty, as regards the restoration of Slaces. 
 
 The British Government stipulated, in the Treaty of Ghent, to restore the property 
 which she had talcen during the war, and which remained in the United States at the 
 ratification. But, in defiance of tlie treaty, she carried away such slaves as she had al- 
 lured to her, or captured, as remained in the United States at the period of the ratifica- 
 tion. It was contended on the part of the British Government, that the slaves which 
 had been carried away were lawful prize of war, and we had no right to demand resti- 
 tution. In consequence of this violation of treaty, the United States claimed, in be- 
 half of her citizens, an indemnity for the slaves which she had thus deported. The 
 British Government refused to make compensation, on th* ground that slaves were not 
 embraced in the meaning of the treaty, and the subject was at length referred to the Em- 
 peror of Russia, who decided that the slaves that remained in the United States at 
 the date of the ratification of the treaty, should be paid for; and a mixed commission 
 was established, to ascertain the number and value ot the slaves which had l)een carried 
 away, and to award the amount to the claimants. The board organized under the me- 
 diation of the Emueror of Russia, met, fixed the value of the slaves, but some disagree- 
 ment took place on the part of the British commissioner, who refused to proceed any 
 further in (he mode provided in the treaty The Government of the United States then 
 represented the real state of the case to the British Government, and a treaty was finally 
 coacluded by which the latter agreed to pay |i 1, 200, 000 to the United ^nates, in full of 
 all claims under this article of the treaty, which sum the Government received and dis- 
 tributed among the claimants who w.re legally entitled to receive it; that is, to those 
 whose slaves had been carried away in violation of treaty stipulation 
 
 Ex'ract of Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State, to the American Plenipotentiaries at 
 Gottenburg: 
 
 "Department of State, January 28, 1814. 
 
 " ft is equally proper that the negroes taken from the Southern States should be re- 
 turneil to their owners, or paid for at their full value. It is known that a shameful 
 traffic has been carried on in the West Indies, by the sale of these persons there, by those 
 who [trofe-saed to be their deliverers. ***** If these slaves are considered as 
 non-combatants, they ought to be restored; if as property, they ought to be paid for. 
 The treaty of peace contains an article which recognizes this principle." 
 
 Let us investigate the question, Who sustained this treaty, containing, as it does a 
 provision for the restoration of slaves then in the possession of a foreign poweri' 
 Executive Journal, February XQth, 1815, ^ vol. 
 
 The treaty of peace and amity between the United States of America and Great 
 Britain, and the resolution to ratify the same, were read the third time. 
 
 On the question, ^Mll the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty? 
 it was unanimously determined in the affirmative, yeas 35. 
 ^ Those who voted are, iVIessrs. Andenson, Barbour, Barry, Bibb, Brown, Chase of 
 Vermont; Daggett, Dana, of Connecticut; Fremontin, Gaillard, German, of I\ew York- 
 Giles, Goldsborough, Gore, of Ma.'^sachusetts; Horsey, Howell, Hunter, of Rhode Island- 
 Kerr, of Ohio; King, of New York; Lacock, of Pennsylvania; Lambert, of Tvew Jersey- 
 Mason, Morrow,, of Ohio; Roberts, Pennsylvania; Robinson, Smith, Talbot, Tait' 
 Thompson, of New Hampshire; Turner. Varnum, Massaclmsetts; Weils Wharton! ^ 
 
 By the 5ih article of the Convention, concluded on the 2oth of October, 1818, it was 
 stipulated that the difierenccs which had arisen between the two Governments, with re- 
 gard to the true intent and meaning of the 5th article of the treaty of Ghent, in relation to 
 the carrying away, by British officers, of slaves from the United States, after the exchange 
 of the ratifications of the treaty of peace, should be referred to some friendly Sovereign 
 or State, to be named for that purpose. 
 
 TuuRSDAY, December 10, 1823. 
 "To the Senate of the United States.- 
 
 " I transmit herewith to the Senate, for their constitutional consideration and decision 
 thereon, a convention between the United States and Great Britain, concluded at St. 
 
48 
 
 Petersburg, on the I2th day of July last, under the mediation of his Imperial Majesty of 
 all the Russias, together with the documents appertaining thereto, and which mity eluci 
 date the motives for its negotiation, and the objects for the accomplishment ot which it ie 
 intended. 
 
 '^Dtcember 4, 1832. JAMES MONROE." 
 
 Friday, JANtJAHY 3, 1823. 
 
 The Convention with Great Britain was read the third time, and the resolution for the 
 ratification thereof having been agreeii to. 
 
 On the question, Will the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of this Conven- 
 tion? it was unanimously determined m the affirmative, yeas 40. 
 
 Tho^e who voted are, Messrs. Barbour, Barton, Benton, Boardman, of Connecticut! 
 Brown, of Louisiana; Brown, of Ohio; Chandler, of Maine; D'VVolf, of Rhode Island; 
 Dickerson, of JSew Jersey; Edwards, of Illinois; Findley, of Pennsylvania; Holmes, of 
 Maine; Holmes, of Mississippi; lohnston, of Louisiana; Johnston, of Kentucky; King, 
 of Alabama; King, of New York; Knight, of Rhode Island; Lanman, of Connecticut; 
 Lloyd, of Massachusetts; Lowrie, of Pennsylvania; Macon, Mills, of Massachusetts? 
 Morril, of New Hampshire; Palmer, of Vermont; Parrott, of New Hampshire; Rodney, 
 Ruggles, of Ohio; ' eyniour, of Vermont; iSmith, of Maryland; Smith, of South (Caro- 
 lina; Stokes, Talbot, of Indiana; Taylor, of Virginia; Thomas, of Illinois, Williams, of 
 Mississippi; Williams, of Tennessee. 
 Extract from Message of Mr. Ada/us to both Houses of Congress, December 6, 1823. 
 
 '•The other commission appointed to ascertain the indemnities due for slaves ctrried 
 away from llie United States, after the close of the late war, have met with some diffi- 
 culty, which has delayed their progress in the inquiry." 
 
 Extract from John Q Adams* Message. 
 
 •'Washington, DECEMiitH 20, 1826. 
 
 '•In the message to both Houses of Congress, at the commencement of their present 
 session, it was int mated that the commission for liquidating the claims of our fellow- 
 Citize7is to ii(dcmi.ity for slaves OT other ])tu[)erly, carried away after the close of the 
 late war with (ireat Britain, in contravention to the first article of the treaty of Ghent, 
 had been sitting in this city, with doubtful prospects of success, but that propositions had 
 recently parsed between the two Governments, which it was hoped would lead to a satis- 
 factery adjustment of that controversy. 
 
 '•Inow transmit to the Senate, for their constitutional consideration and advice, a 
 Convention signed at London, by the IMenipotentiaries of the two Governments, on the 
 13th of liie last month, relating to this subject." 
 
 The Senate proceeded to consitier the Convention, and no amendment having been 
 made thereto, it was reported to the Senate accordingly. 
 
 Mr. Sandtord, of Tvew York, submitted the following resolution: 
 
 Resolvid, (two-thirds of the Senators present concuiring,) That the Senate advise and 
 consent to the ratification of the Convention between the United States and the United 
 Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, concluded at London, on the 13th day of No- 
 vember, 18~6. n u 
 
 I'he Senate proceeded to consider the resolution by unanimous consent. On the 
 question to a'.;ree thereto, it was determined in the athrmative. 
 
 Those who voted are, Messrs. Barton, Bell, of New Hampshire; Benton, Berrien, 
 Bouligny, Branch, Chandler, of Maine; Clayton, Dickerson, of New Jersey; Edwards, 
 of Connecticut; Findlay, of Pennsylvania; Harrison, of Ohio; Hayne, Hendricks, of 
 Indiana; Holmes, of Maine; Johnston, of Louisiana; Kane, of Illinois; King, Macon, 
 Marks, of J\nnsylvania; McMinley, Reed, Robbins, of Rhode Island; Rooney, Sand- 
 ford, of New York; Seymour, of Vermont; Silsbee, of Massachusetts; Smith, of Mary- 
 land'; Tazewell, Thomas, of Illinois; White, Wilhams, W^oodbury, of New Hampshire. 
 Executive Journal, vol. iii, p. 554. 
 
 i This Convention, concluded at London, had the effect to settle the difference between 
 the American and Biitish Governments, under the treaty of Ghent, by which the cxecu- 
 tion vfthi /provision Jur indemnu y for diported slaves had been lor some time delayed. 
 This Convention, entered into by Mr. Gallatin with the British Government, and nego- 
 tiated undir /he auspices of Mr. Adams, and ratfied by the whole representation in 
 the Se/iult coming from non-slaveholding States, fixed the cumpentation to be paid for 
 slaves. 
 
Indemnification is only another form of restitution; a mode of paying liquidated 
 damages where property has been violated; and the subject cannot be restored in specie, 
 and can only be claimed when the wrong complained of is admitted as proved. The 
 right to compensation, in the eye of the treaty, was just as perfect as the right to the sur- 
 render of the negroes. So thought the Senate of the United States. They also considered 
 the right of indemnity as travtlUng with the right of propertij. Indeed, they have 
 alway-i been considered property in all of our diplomatic relations with foreign powers, 
 and in the most solemn international acts, from 1782 to 1838. 
 
 Great Britain has granted indemnification on account of this species of property in 
 two instances^ first, for slaves captured on our own territory durmg the last war; second- 
 ly, because slaves have escaped to her colonies. In the last instance siie considered her- 
 self estopped by her own practice to deny the right of property in slaves; and, therefore, 
 not being willing to restore slaves in person, she granted inderanilication. The Federal 
 Government has proceeded upon the above principles in granting indemnity for the des- 
 truction ol this species of property, where it had been pressed into the service of the 
 United States Army. 
 
 The bill for the relief of Francis Larche, of New Orleans, was considered by the Sen- 
 ate. Mr. Ruggles, of Ohio, argued that this bill had two or ihree times passed the Senate, 
 but had never been fully acted upon in the other House. The circumstances oi the 
 claim are these: The negro slave of the petitioner was impressed into the service of the 
 United States during the last war, and was employed in the transportation of baggage. 
 Whilst in this service he was killed by a cannon ball from the enemy. The facts had 
 been proved to the satisfaction of the committee; and as slaves were recognized as pro- 
 ptrty by the war, the petitioner was, in the opinion of the committee, entitled to relief. 
 The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. [See Congressional Debates 
 part !, vol. 4, page 3.5. See also the case of Marigny D'Auterive.] This was a pri- 
 vate bill providing for remunerating the claimant for the lost time of a slave impressed 
 into the service of the United States at New Or eans, and who was wounded. — [Part 1, 
 vol. 4, p. 899. ] The indemnity in these cases was predicated on the principle that slaves 
 were property. 
 
 Before we conclude our views in relation to the recapture of fugitive slaves, let us ad- 
 vert to the legislation on this subject. 
 
 Ix Congress, Friday, September 21, 1781. 
 On the recapture by a citizen of any negro, mulatto, Indian, or other person from 
 whom htbor or service is lawfully claimed by another citizen, whether the original cap- 
 ture shall have been made on land or water, a reasonable salvage being paid by the 
 claimant to the re captor, not exceeding one fourth part of the value of^such labor or 
 service, to be estimated according to the laws of the State of which the claimant shall 
 be a citizen; but if the service of such negro, mulatto, Indian, or other person, cap- 
 tured below high water mark, shall not be legally claimed by a citizen of these United 
 States, he shall be set at liberty. The yeas and nays being required, passed unanimously. 
 [See Journal of Congres?, vol. 6, page 103.] 
 
 Is CoNORKSs, July, 1787. 
 
 An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States northwest of 
 
 the river Ohio. 
 
 Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery noi involuntary servitude in the said Terri- 
 tory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
 duly convicted: Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom 
 labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may 
 be lawfully reclaimed, and carried to the person claiming his or her labor or service as 
 aforesaid. [See 1 vol. Laws of United States, Bioren's edition, page 480.] 
 
 On passing the above ordinance, the yeas and nays being required 'by Mr. Yates those 
 who voted in the affirmative are, Messrs. Hilton and Dana, of Massachusetts; Smith, Har- 
 ▼ing, and Yates, of New York; Clarke and Scheureinon, of New Jersey; Kearney and 
 Mitchell, of Delaware; Grayson and R. H. Lee, of Virginia; Blount and Hawkins of 
 North Carolina; Kean and Hugh, of South Carolina; Few and Pierce, of Georgia. ' 
 
 So it was resolved in the affirmative by a unanimous vote. [See Journals of Con^ 
 gress, vol. 4, from 1774 to 1788, ] This ordinance has been decided to be constitutional 
 and valid. [See 5 Peters, p. 504 ] 
 4 
 
50 
 
 An Act CO ■ctrnlng the District of Columbia. 
 
 Sec. 6. And be it further enacted. That in all cases where the Constitution or la'.vs 
 provide that criminals or fu'j;itives from justice, or persons held to labor in any State, 
 escaping into another State, shall he delivered up, the Chief Justice of the said District 
 shall be, and he is hereby empowered and required, to cause to be apprehended and deliv- 
 ered up such criminal, fugitive from justice, or person fleeing from service, as the case 
 may he, who shall be found within the District, in the same manner, and under the same 
 regulations as the executive aut'iority of the several States are required to do the same; 
 and all executive and judicial officers are hereby required to obey all lawful precepts or 
 Other process issued for that purpose, and to be aiding and assisting in such delivery. — 
 Appromd by Jo fin Adims, March 3, 1801. [See United States Statutes at Large, 
 vol. ii, page 1 16] 
 
 Those who voted for the bill from the non-slaveholdin;^ States are, Christopher Cham- 
 plin, of Rhode Island; Franklin Davenport and Jas. H. Imlay, of New Jersej'^; Wil- 
 liam Cooper and Henry Glen, of New York; Abriel Foster, of New Hamphire; Jona- 
 than Sim and Chauncey Goodrich, of Connecticut; Levi Lincoln, Harrison G. Otis, and 
 Peleg vVadsworth, of Massachusetts; and Robert Wain, of Pennsylvania. [See House 
 Journal, nth and 6lh Congress, page 820.] 
 
 By the act of 26th March, 1801, " creating Louisiana into two territories, and pro- 
 viding for a temporary Government," we also find a provision for the recapture of " fu- 
 gitive slaves, escaping from service of their masters." [See Laws of the United States, 
 Bioren's edition, vol. 3., chap. 391, sect. 6] 
 
 COMPROMISE PROyiaiOX HESPECTINO SLAVEKT. 
 
 An Act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and 
 
 State Government. 
 
 Sec 8. And be it further enacted, That all that Territory ceded by France to the 
 United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thiity 
 minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contemplated by this 
 act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, 
 whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever pro- 
 hibited : Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom 
 service is lawfully claimed, in any Stale or Territory of the United Slates, such 
 fugitive may be lawfully claimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or tier 
 labor or service as aforesaid. — Approved March 6, 1820. [See United States Sta- 
 tutes at Large, vol. 3, 548.] 
 
 This section was an amendment to the bill, and was agreed to without a division. 
 [See Senate Journal, 1st Sess. 16th Cong., 201.] 
 
 In pursuing our historical reminiscences in relation to the legislation of Congress, we 
 
 will advert to the effort made to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, as early at 
 
 1805. It will be perceived, that the resolution submitted to that body is somewhat anala- 
 
 gouB to the provisions of the Penirsylvania act of 1780, which abolished slavery in that State. 
 
 Friday, January 16, 1805. 
 
 F.esolved, That from and after the fourth of July, one thousand eight hundred and 
 five, all blacks and people of color that shall be born within the District of Columbia, or 
 whose mother shall be the propeay of any person residing within said District, shall be 
 ffee — tlie males at the age of , and the females at the age of . 
 
 The question being taken, that the House do agree to the said motion, as proposed, 
 it passed in the negative — yeas, 31 ; nays, 77. 
 
 Those who voted in the negative from the non-slaveholding States are, Frederick 
 Conrad, Joseph Heister, and John Stewart, of Pennsy'vania ; Jacob Crowenshield, Wil- 
 liam Eustis, and Willi;im Stedman, of Massachusetts ; John Davenport, Colvin God- 
 dard, and Roger Griswold, of Connecticut ; Adam Boyd, James Moot, and Henry South- 
 ard, of New Jersey ; Henry W. Livingston, Henry Riker, Philip Van Tortland, William 
 K. Van Rensselaer, and Daniel C. Veiplaiick, of New York ; Gideon Olin, of Vermont ; 
 and Saniui-1 Tenney, ol New Hampshire. [See House Journal, 8th and 9ih Congress, 
 vol. 5, pp. 94, 95.] 
 
 Congress recognized slavery when North Carolina ceded a portion of territory to the 
 United Stales. By the adoption of an act to accept a cession of claims of the State 
 of North Carolina to a certain district of western territory, it is provided, " that no re- • 
 gulations made, or to be made by Congress, shall tend to emancipate slaves." [See 6 
 vol. United States Statute at Large, page 108. Approved, April 2, 1790.] 
 
51 
 
 By the act prohibiting the importation of slaves into any port within the jurisdiction 
 of the United States, it provided by the 9th section, that all vessels sailing coastwise, 
 having on board any negro, mulatto, or person of color, for the purpose of transporting 
 them to be sold or disposed of at sales, or te be held to service or labor, shall, previous 
 to the departure of such ship or vessel, make out and subscribe duplicate manifest of any 
 such negro, mulatto, or person of color on board of such ship or vessel. [See United 
 States Statutes at Large, 2 vol. page. 42!). Approved March 2, 1807] 
 
 TnuRsuAT, Dkckmih-.r 27, 1827. 
 
 Mr. Van Buren, from the (Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the pe- 
 tition of Richard H. Wilde, of Georgia, reported a bill to authorize the cancelling of a 
 certain bond therein mentioned; which was read, and ordered that it pass to a second 
 reading. — [See Senate Journal, 1st Sess., 20th Cong., p. 60.] 
 
 From the memorial in the foregidng case, it appeared that the Antelope was a ves- 
 sel unquestionably belonging to Spanish subjects, was captured while receiving a cargo 
 of Africans on the coast of Africa, by the Arraganta, a privateer which was manned in 
 Baltimore, and sailed under the flag of the Oriental Republic. That it appeared, also, 
 that the negroes (thirty-nine in number,) were a part of a cargo of negroes found on 
 board of a Spanish vessel which was captured by a revenue cutter of the United States, 
 sent into Savannah, and libelled for an alledged violation of the slave acts of the United 
 States. The Spanish Consul set up a claim to the vessel and cargo, as the property of 
 Spanish subjects; the Portuguese Consul setup a claim in behalf of certain subjects of 
 Portugal ; and the captain of a privateer, sailing a South American, advanced another 
 •claim. Upon investigation, it was found that the negroes had been plundered from 
 several Spanish and Portuguese ships by a South American privateer. The suits grow- 
 ing out of these claims were prosecuted in different courts of the United States. The 
 claimants were required to give bond, with security, /(;/• the removal of the negroes from 
 the United States. The mernoriahst purchased the negroes from ihe claimants for the 
 sum of fifteen thousand dollars. 
 
 The purchaspr then apjjlied to the Congress of the United States for the cancellation 
 of the bond which had been given by the claimants for the removal of the nearoes from 
 the United States, in order that they might remain in the State of Georgia. It must be 
 remarked, that the negroes were adjudicated to the claimants. Mr. Wilde becomes the 
 purchaser of the negroes, by giving a stipulated sum of money, and the bond executed for 
 the removal of the negroes from the United States, is, by an act of Congress, cancelled. 
 Is not this bill of Mr. Van Buren's an express recognition of the val'dlty of the sale of 
 the negV'ies, and \hat he recogw'stdi-laves as property? This bill is predicated on the 
 principle that the purchase by Mr. Wilde required the legislation of Congress to impart to 
 the transaction validity. W^ithout such an act, the sale to Mr. Vv'ilde by the claimants 
 would not have been sustained; because under the acts of Congress prohi'iting the im- 
 portation of slaves, the claimants were bound under the obligations ol their bond, (o re- 
 move them beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. This act of Congress accom- 
 plished more than the establishing the validity of the sale, it sanctioned the importation 
 i'lto Ihe United States, to be held in slavery, in relaxation of the law of 1807, which is 
 prohibitory of such importation. These negroes were in the custody of the law when 
 this sale was effected; they were not legally imported into the United States, and the 
 effect of cancelling the bond executed by the Spanish claimants to the United States, for 
 their removal, was simply to allow a transaction in violation of the provisions of the acts 
 of Congress, or to legahze the importation. [Sec 6 vol. U. S. Statutes at Large ] This 
 act cancelling the bond was approved by John y. Adams. [See .'-ession Acts, 182S.] 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Laws and Decisions of the non-slaveholding Slates respecting the 
 institution of Slavei^i/, and Fugitives from Labor. 
 
 rENNSTLVANrA. 
 
 At an early period the question of the existence of slavery in Pennsylvania was con- 
 sidered, and that staves were property there, was unanimously pronounced after the most 
 elaborate arguments in the highest judicial tribunals in that State. 
 
52 
 
 By the act of Pennsylvania, of the 29th March, 1780, and the act of 1st March, 
 1788, explained or amended l)y the last act, ail negroes born after (he passage of the 
 ltd were to be free,- b'tt the slaves then born and living in the Slote were co/iiinued in 
 slaviry and to be registered. IVo slaves could be introduced for sale, or exported for" 
 sale; and all who were brought in, except by sojourners lor six months, and members 
 of Congress for temporary residence during the session of Congress, were declared free. 
 [Purdoii's Dii., 555, 5'J7. 1 Dal. L, 838; 1 Smith, 692; 2 Dal. L , 53ii; 2 Smith, 
 44 5.] Children born after the passage of the act of 17!^(), subject however to a tempo- 
 rary servitude [."^ee v.iller vs. Dowling, 14 Sergeant & Rawle, 442.] 
 
 It has been announced by the Court of Errors and Appeals in that State, in the case 
 of ne<j;ro Flora I's. Greensbury, at March term, 1/98, " ihat it was their unanimous 
 opinion slavery was not inconsi-stent with any clause in the Constitution of Pennsylva- 
 nia," and conformably to this opinion the entry of the record is, "the Court is utsani- 
 mously of the opinion, that negro Flora is a slave, and that she is the property of de 
 fendanl in error, and the Court below is sustained " It has also been decided by Jud 
 ges Hopkinson and Baldwin, that slaves "were tlien, and yet are, considered as projier- 
 ty; slavery yet exists in Pennsylvania, and the rights of the owners are now the same 
 as before the abolition act." [See I Baldwin's Rep. 589.] J^^ee the following decisions of 
 the highest tribunals of Pennsylvania affirming the existence of slavery: 4 S. & R , 
 218, 42.7; 4 Yates, 115, 109, 2*40; 1 Dal. 167, 475, 469: 2 Yates, 234; 7 S. & R., 
 386; 3 S. & R, 396; 6 Binney, 213; 1 Wash C. C. R., 499; I Bro , 113; 5 S. & 
 R., 62, 333; 4 Bin., 116; 4 Dall, 'JS^, 260; 4 Wash- C C. R., 399; 1 Wall., 155. 
 
 An at'tion lies at common law for seducing and harboring a servant or slave. This . 
 right has always existed in Pennsylvania. [I Bald., 57 1.] 
 
 A citizen of another State on a visit to this State with his slave, in case of the slave's 
 refusal to return, is entitled to the aid ol the magistrate to carry him out of the State. — 
 [2 Dallas, 227.] 
 
 Pennsylvania had slaves in 1780 and in 1788, and in 1790, when the laws of 1780 
 and 1768 were continued in force by her constitution; and she still has slaves, recog- 
 nized as such in the State, and returned as such under every preceding census; 
 and as to their slaves, they are as much the property of their owners and the subject of 
 sale within the State, as the slaves of Maryland. On this subj-ct we have not only the 
 decision of their highest tribunal, before quoted, but an uninterrupted series of adjudi- 
 cations to the same effect. In 1835, Judges Baldwin and Hopkinson decided a case of 
 considerable importance as regards the rights of owners to their slaves. Judge Baldwin, 
 in delivering the opinion of the Court, says: " VVhile the abolition act put free blacks 
 on the footing of free white men, and abolished slavery for life, as to those thereafter 
 horn,- it did not otherwise interfere with those born before, or slaves excepted from the 
 operations of the law; they were then, and yet are, considered as property; slavery yet 
 exists in Penns} Ivania, and the rights of the owners are now the same as before the aboli- 
 tion act; though their nu nber is ■•^mall, their condition is unchatitied.'" 
 
 No State in the Union has violated the solemn compact on the subject of fugitive 
 slaves more violently than Pennsylvania. The Act passed the 8th of March, 1^47, by 
 the Legislature of Pennsylvania, entitled " An act to prevent kidnapping, preserve the 
 public peace, prohibit the exercise of certain powers heretofore exercised by Judges, Jus- 
 tices of the Peace, Aldermen and Jailors in this Commonwealth, and to repeal certain 
 slave laws," is perhaps one of the most odious and unconstitutional measures that has 
 been enacted in any of the non-slaveholding States. It forbids the Judges of our Courts 
 from taking cognzance of fugitive slaves; it attempts to impose a restriction upon the 
 master, in using force to reclaim the slave; and the 8th seciion forbids the u.*e of the 
 jails and pri.-ons of the Commonwealth, under the penalty of a fine of five hundred dol- 
 lars, and disfranchisement of office during life. 
 
 NKW JKRSET. 
 
 The Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, in order to encourage emigration, not only 
 gave large portions of land to every individual who would settle in the country, and also 
 a proportionate number of acres for evt-ry man servant that he .should brin<; with him 
 before July I, 166.o, but " for every weaker serva-it or slate, male or female, exceeding 
 the age of fourteen years, arriving there, sixty acres of land." — I. & Spiccr. 21. And 
 by the laws of the Colony of East New Jersey, passed in 1682, 1694, and 1695, [L. 
 & S , 250, 340, 356,] slavery is recognized; and by the acts of the Colonial Legislature 
 of 1713 and 1784, particular provisions are made on the .subject; and this remained in 
 force until it was repealed and provided for by the act of 1798, now in force. [See 1 
 SpcDcer, 384.] 
 
S3 
 
 The relation of master and slave existed by law in New Jersey when the present con- 
 stitution was adopted; and that constitution has not destroyed that relation to that sub- 
 ject existing at the time of its adoption. [State ts. Port, J Spencer, 368; the State vs. 
 Van Buren, 1 Spencer, 368.] 
 
 The judicial records of this State confirm the position, that under the laws already 
 referred to, slavery had a legal existence in the State both before and after the Revolu- 
 tion. It is not necessary to cite with particularity the adjudications of the Courts in 
 this State to prove the iruth of the remark ; nearly every volume (f reports, liom the 
 organization of the Federal Government to the present time, abounds in cases lecugniz- 
 ing the right of the mastt-r over his slave. 
 
 In 1804 the Legislature adopted the plan for the gradual abolition of slavfiy. This 
 law was re-enacted in lti2(J, with many additional provisions not necessary heie to no- 
 tice ; for some of them interfered with the owner's right to the person and services of 
 such as were then held as slaves, but left that relation with all its rights and correspon- 
 dent legal obligations. [See 1 Spencer, 371.] 
 
 By the act of New Jersey, of 14th March, 1733, (Elmer's Digest, 520,) slaves already 
 within the State, it is expressly enacted, shdU, remain slaves fur life, and their sale by 
 their owners is permitted, except collusive sales of decrejjid slaves. The importation of 
 slaves, for sale, is prohibited under a pecuniary penalty, but certain persons are permit- 
 ted to bring in certain slaves for their own use. [See Halsted, 253 ; 3 Halsted, 2iy,275 ; 
 1 Penning. 10; Halsted, 162.] 
 
 It is true, that slavery is incompatible with liberty, and does not correspond with the 
 true principles of a Republican Government; but it is recogniz' d by our laws, and it 
 exists in New Jersey. Negro slaves have always been looked upon in the same light 
 with other personal property, and trans/erred in the same manner. It is a rule of pro- 
 pel ty applicable to personal property, that possession constitutes a sufficient title against 
 all persons except the rightful owner, who, whenever he appears, may claim and recover 
 that which belongs to him. [See 6 Smith's opinion, concurring with the Chiet Justice, 1 
 Coxe's Rep., p. 332 ] 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 In New York slavery existed to the same extent, as regards the relation between mas- 
 ter and servant, as now exists in the slaveholding States, until very recently. By the 
 colony laws ot New York, prior to the Revolution, slavery was as firmly established in 
 that State as in any of the Southern States, and the importation of slaves into New 
 York encouraged bylaw. [See acts of 1730, 1740 ; 1 Colony Laws, 72, 193, 196, 288.] 
 
 The act of 20th March, 1781, (32,56,) recognized slavery as in full force in New 
 York, as also did the act of 1st May, 1785.— C. 58 ; see 29, 30.) The act of 22d of 
 February, 1788, (C. 40,) enacted cotemporaneously with the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, recognized and continued the existence of slavery in New 
 York, but f rohibited the importation of shires for sale. — 1 Revised Stats., 656 ; K. 
 &, R., 1 ; R. L. 614 ; Session 36, ch. 38, s^23, R. L. 208. In the case of Skinner vs. 
 Fleet, 14 Johnson's Reports. 2(;2, that where a slave ran away from his mastei, who was 
 an inhtibitant of the State of Connecticut, and came to the city of New York, where 
 he was found, and was sold by his master to a person who was also an inhabitant ot the 
 State of Connecticut, but was then in the city of New York on business, that this sale 
 was not such an importation into the State, as rendered him free. — 2 John. Cases, 89. 
 By the act of 4th July, 1799, (c. 62,) slaves born in the State after that date were de- 
 clared free at twenty-eight years of age ; but all others were continued as slaves. By 
 the act of 30th March, 1810, the importation of slaves, except by the owntr fur nine 
 month's residence, was prohibited ; and most of the preceding acts were incorporated. 
 By the act of 9th April, 1813, and finally by the act of July, 1827, slavery was finally 
 abolished ; whilst, by the act of 1788, and laws subsequently enacted, slaves subsequently 
 imported into the State could not be sold by the master or owner ; yet even the.^e slaves 
 were properly in all other respects ; they were assets for the payment of debts ; they 
 could be sold by a trustee or assignee of an insolvent's estate; by an administrator or 
 executor, or by the sheriff under an execution ; and all other slaves were subject to sale 
 by their owners as all other property. [2 John. Cases, 79, 488, 89 ; 11 John., 68, 415 ; 
 17 John ,296.] 
 
 In 1794, A, the owner of a slave in New Jersey, removed to New York with the 
 slave, and put the slave to service with B, until they or their executors shou'd annul 
 their contract. Chancellor Kent declared, in 2 John. Cases, 85, " That this part of the 
 act, (of 1788,) concerning slaves, was made, as its preamble imports, to prever t the fur- 
 ther importation of slaves into the State ; a policy, the direct counterpart of that con- 
 tained in one of our colony laws, (vol. 1, 283, 284,) which declared, that all due encoor- 
 
54 
 
 agement ought to be given to the direct importation of slaves. The act was hostile to 
 the importation and to the exportation of slaves, as an article of trade, not to the exist- 
 ence (if aliiverij itself; for it takes care to re-enact and eftablish the maxim of the 
 civil Invv, that ihe children of every female slave shall follow the state and condition of 
 the mother. 
 
 In the same case, Judge Benson says: " By the law of this State, slavery may ixist 
 within It ; one person can have property in another, and the slave is a part of the goods- 
 of the master, and may he sold, or otherwise aliened by him ; or remaining unaliened, 
 is on his death transmissible to his executors. [See 2 Johnson Cases, 86.] 
 
 1st. It is fiffiimed by this decision, that slaves may be sold as other property, but 
 imported shives cannot be sold by the owners. 
 
 2d. That tlieir issue may be sold even by the owner who imported their mothers. 
 
 3d. In all cases of persons acting in oater droit, as executors, assignees of absent or 
 insolvent debtors, sheriffs on sale by 'execution, and trustees on whom the duty devolves, by 
 the interpretation ot law, the act does not apply, and imported slaves are liable to be sold. 
 
 While slaves are regarded and protected as property, they ought to be liable to the 
 payment of debts.— [Per Kent, Justice. See vol. 1 and 2, Johnson's Cases, p. 64 ; Sa- 
 ble vs. lliiehcook] 
 
 It was not considered to prevent a Sheriff from taking or selling a slave under an exe- 
 cution against the owner ; and the slave was subject to the control and disposition ot the 
 executor or adminstrator of a deceased owner, in the same manner as other personal 
 property. The prohibition was against a voluntary sale by the master of a slave im- 
 ported or l.rou-iht into the State. [Sable vs. Hitchcock, 2 John. Cor. TO ; Cassar vs. 
 Peabody, 1 1 Jc.hns. 68 ; Gelston vs. Russel, &c., 11 Johns. 415 ] 
 
 A slave is incapable of contracting so as to impair the right of his master to reclaim 
 him ; and if a private individual sue out process or interfere, it will be deemed illegal, and 
 the claimant will have a right of action for any injury he may have received by such 
 obtructiou. [Glen vs. Hodges, 9 Johns. 69] 
 
 The master of a slave who had run away to a free State, and lived there as a free- 
 man, reclaimed him, and while in possession of the master, a creditor of the slave sued 
 out an attachment against isim, and took him from the master. Tiiat the slave was 
 rightly reclaimed under the laws of the United States. [Glen vs. Hodges, 9 Johns. 67.] 
 
 The owner of a slave who deserts his master and works for another, need not give 
 notice of his claim to entitle himself to an action for the slave services. [5 Cowen, 480.] 
 
 The statute of 1788 imposed a penalty for harboring slaves or servants ; and as it was 
 held, moreover, that this was constitutional, and did not destroy the common law reme- 
 dy, which n master had by an action to recover damages for seducing and harboring his 
 servant. [Skidmore vs. Smith, 13 Johns. 322 ] 
 
 The li'.aster might confine his slave in jail, and this it appears was done in a case de- 
 cided as late as 1823. [Smith vs. Hoff, 1 Cow., 127. J 
 
 By the act for the gnidual abolition of slavery all children born of slaves subsequent to 
 the 4th of July, 1796, were declared to be free, but to continue servants to the owners 
 of their ni'ilieis — males till the age of twenty eight, and females till the age of twenty- 
 five. The act of 1817 made it the duly of the masters of such servants to give them 
 certain education arriving at the age of eighteen, and in default of so doing declared 
 the servant free at the aye of eighteen ; and in order that it might be known when the 
 age was attained which discharged ihem fom further servitude, the person entitled to 
 such serv.ce was required within one year after the passage of the act, or after the birth 
 of the child of a slave, to make an affidavit stating the age of such servant ; and in de- 
 fault of making and filing such affidavit, within the time specified, the act declared the 
 petson so held to service free at eighteen. [Griffin vs Potter, 14 VVend., 201).] 
 
 Even after this act all those alive who were born in the State prior to the 4ih of July, 
 1799, of f. mules who were slaves at the time of the birth, coniiuued slaves in that State, 
 except such as had been emancipated by their owners. 
 
 At last by an act of the 31st of March, 1817, provision was made for the annihilation 
 of slavery in the Siaie of New York about ten years thereafter, by a section which de- 
 clared that every negro mulatto or ma.ster within the State born before the 4th of July, 
 1799, should, from and after the 4th day of July, lt?27, be free. 
 
 In New York the writ de honiine reple<r'and) has been more frequently resorted to 
 than in the other States. In 1834, a man who was brought before the Recorder of the 
 city of New York as a fugitive slave, sued out a writ of homine roplegiatido, upon 
 which an issue was joined in the New York Circuit, and a verdict found that the man 
 owed service to the person claiming him ; on which verdict judgment was rendered. 
 The Supreme Court of New York decided that the proper course then was, for the Re- 
 
55 
 
 corder to grant a certificate allowing the removal of the fugitive. [See Floyd «.9. Re- 
 corder of New York, 11 Wend., 180.] The claimant cannot be prevented from remov- 
 ing his slave by a writ de hcmine repleginndo, sued out under the authority of a Stale 
 Jaw. [Jack. vs. Martin, 12 Wendell, 311.] 
 
 CONNECTICUT. 
 
 By the law of Connecticut, of 1774 and of 1784, re-enacted and revised and continued 
 in 1791 and 1821, sJavry was continued as to the slaves already in the Slate, but all 
 born after the first of March, 1784, were d( dared free. — See Statute, 423, 440 ; 1 Swift's 
 ed., 230 ; 12 Con. Rep., 45, 59, 60, G4. In the case of a slave brought from Georgia to 
 Connocncui in 1835, and lefi there for temporary purposes, such slave was declared free, 
 one judge only dissenting, and he upon the sole ground that the slave was not left 
 within the meaning of the act of 1764. In the case reported in 12 Conn., 38 to 67, 
 and decided in 1827, it was held that slaveiy did exist as to slaves introduced prior 
 to a certain date ; that these slaves still continue to be held as property, subject to the 
 control of their masters, ai d that numbers of them still continue so to be held, is proved 
 by the cenFus of the State in 1840. The doctrine of 8 Connecticut Reps., 393, was of- 
 fered, m which it was declared that a certain negro in Connecticut " was the slaiie and 
 personal property" of his master in Connecticut. This case was very elaborately ar- 
 gued by the counsel, and the opinion evinced great learning and ability. Ixi decid- 
 ing this case, the court was unanimous. [See 2 Root, 335,317 ; 2 Conn., 355 ; 3 Conn. 
 467; 8 Conn., 393.] 
 
 That slavery has existed in this State, cannot be denied. [See 8 Conn. Rep., 402, per 
 Williams I ] 
 
 Slavery, to «oine extent, has been recognized by the laws of this State. [.lackson 
 vs. Bulloch, 12 Con., 38. 
 
 That the relation of master and slave is one recognized by the laws of thiF State. — 
 [Stat. 428, tit. 93 ; Windsor vs. Hartford, 2 Conn. Rep., 355; Columbia vs. Williams, 
 3 Conn., 467.] 
 
 Peters I., 11. The relation of master and servant, or qualified slavery, has existed in 
 Connecticut from time immemorial; and has been tolerated by the Legislature. But 
 absolute slaveiy, where the master has unlimited power over the life of his slave, hae 
 never been permitted in this State. [2 Switt's Syst , 348 ; 1 B. C. Comm., 448 ; 8 Con- 
 necticut Rep., p. 398.] 
 
 " Upon the death of her master, Flora, not being devised, was transferred to the de- 
 fendants, and being a chattel, vested in them ; for the ptrsoval estate of a deceased 
 testator vests absolutely in his executors. They alone could sell her ; they became her 
 masters, and sne their slave ; and they alone were to maintain her until she was dis- 
 tributed to his htir or legatees; and this ohligauon followed the right of p)operty 
 upon every transfer." 
 
 The daughter ot a female slave born after the 1st March, 1784, is not a slave, 
 though liable to be held in servitude until twenty-five years of age. — [Windsor vs. 
 Hariford,2Con., 355] 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 The subject of slavery occupied the attention of the legislature of Massachusetts, at 
 one of the sessions in 17f;7. In Bradford's History of Ma.«sachu setts, page 189, we find 
 the following remarks upon the subject of slavery: "As correct views of civil liberty and 
 of the rights of men prevailed in the Province, greater sympathy for the Africans was 
 manifested; and many ownehs of slavks gave up their claims to their services. At 
 this period, it was computed that one third within the Province were in Boston." 
 
 Again: '* Before the Revolution, doinestic y/arerij tros 7int uncomriion in the large 
 toic'is in Massachusetts; and as late as the year 1774, the public papers usually contained 
 notices of black slaves for sale." [See Bradford's History of Massachusetts, p. 9, 303.] 
 
 The law as to slavery in Massachusetts is stated by Chief Justice Parsons, in a case 
 which came before the Supreme Court of that State [See Winchendon, et. al., vs. 
 Hatfield, et. al., 4 Mass. Rep., 123.] "Slavery," he says, " was introduced into this 
 country soon after its first settlement, and tolerated until the ratification of the present 
 constitution. The slave was the property of his master, subject to his orders, and to 
 reasonable correction for misbehavior, was transferable like a chattel, by gift or sale, and 
 was assets in the hands of his executor or administrator. If the master was guilty of a 
 cruel or unreasonable castigation of his slave, he was liable to be punished for the breach 
 of the peace, and I believe the slave was allowed to demand sureties of the peace against 
 a violent and barbarous master, which generally caused a sale to another master. And 
 the issue of a female slave, according to the maxim of the civil law, was the property of 
 
56 
 
 her master. Under these regulations, the treatment of slaves was in general mild and 
 humane, and they suirered hardships no greater than hired servants." 
 
 In 1823, it was decided by the Supreaie Court of Massachusetts, " that a slave be- 
 longing to a person in Virginia escaping into Massachusetts, after which the owner died, 
 it was held, under the act of Congress of 179:^, the slave might lie seized without a war- 
 rant " [See Com;nonwealth vs. Griffith, 2 Pick.., 1 1. Parsons delivering the opinion 
 of the court ] These are the views of a Judge whose talents and character would grace 
 any bench, to whom a disposition to exercise jurisdiction that is usurped, or to surrender 
 his legitimate powers, will certainly not be impuled, who yielded without hesitation to 
 the authority of the provisions of the act of 1793. 
 
 Upo 1 a general review of the authorities, and upon an application of the well established 
 principles upon this subject, we think they fully maintain the point stated, that ttiough 
 slavery is contrary to natural right, to the principles of justice, humanity and sound 
 policy, as we adopted them and formed our laws upon them, yet not beina: contrviry to 
 the laws of nations, if any other State or community see fii to establish and continue 
 slavery by law, so far as the legislative power of that country extends, ws are bound to 
 take notice oj the existence of those laws, and we are not at liberty to declare and hold an 
 act done within those limsts, unlawful and void, upon our view of morality and policy, 
 which the sovereign and legislative powers of the place has pronounced to be lawful. — 
 [See 18 Pickering, 'ilo. Pt-r. C J. Shaw ] 
 
 In 1841, in the Supreme Judicial Court, a case was decided by C. J. Shaw, which 
 confirms all preceding adjudications relatively to the right of the master to reclaim his 
 slave. He says: That "although bond slavery does not exist here, yet bi/ the laws of 
 nations it is legally existing, so far, that riftlois re'j;ard the right which others exercise 
 to hold hlaves. And it is on this ground that the Constitution recognizes slavery, and 
 provides for the restoration of fugitive slaves. The States are, to some purposes, foreign 
 to each other, and in respect to slavery, that is one of the part'cuUrs in which the ('on- 
 stitutKin so regards them. That principle, however, is limited to fugitive slaves." [See 
 Law Reporter, vol. 4, p. 275; the Boston edition.] 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Speeches and Writings of the prominent Statesmen of the non- 
 sldveholding States upon the subject of Slavery ; alsi, Addresses 
 and liesolutions. 
 
 In 1788, a society in France, and another in England, formed for promoting the 
 aboliti(m of slavery, opened a correspondence with the Hon. John Jay, to which he re- 
 phed. He says: '' Prior to the Revolution, the great majority, or rather the great body 
 of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having 
 slaves, that very few among them ever doubted the propriety and rectitude of it." 
 
 "The Convention which formed and recommended the new t'onstitution, had an ar- 
 duous task to perform, especially in local interests, and in some measure local prejudice* 
 were to be accommodated. Several of the States conceived that restraints on slavery 
 might be too rapid to consist with their political circumstances, and the importance of 
 union rendered it necessary that their wishes on that head should, in some degree, be 
 gratified." [See Life of Juilge Jay, by his son, p. 233.] 
 
 In the year 1798, being called on by the United Slates marshal for an account of his 
 taxable property, he accompanied a list of his slaves with the following observations: 
 " I fturc/iasc slaves and manumit them at proper ages, and when their faithful services 
 shall have atlbrded a reasonable retribution." 
 
 As free servants became more common, he was gradually relieved from the necessity 
 of pur( basing slaves. [See Jay's Life, by his son, 235.] 
 
 Extract from the Life of (ioverneur Morris, vul. 1, p. 125. Mr. Morris was a member 
 of the ("onventiun which framed the Constitution of the United States : 
 
 *' It is known full well thatGovcrneur Morris struggled hard to introduce an article in 
 the constitution of Xew York, in which he had the hearty co o{)eration of Mr. Jay, and 
 some others, and the purport of which was, that it should be earnestly recommended to 
 
57 
 
 the future legislature of New York, to take some effectual measures for abolishing do- 
 mestic slavery, as soon as it could be done consistently with public safety, ad the rights 
 of prlnate property." 
 
 Extract from a communication of the Hon. Rufus King, a Senator from New 
 York, and for many years one of the most distinguished statesmen in the country, to 
 John B. Coles and others. 
 
 "Jamaica, (L. I ,) November 'ii, 1817. 
 " I am perfectly anxious not to be mi-understood in this case, never having thought 
 myself at liberty to encourage, or to assent to any measure that would affect the security 
 of property in ilaiies, or tend to disturb t/ie polUical adjust merit which the Constitution 
 tiad made reipectin^ them,- I desire to be considered as still adhering to this leserve." 
 [See 17 vol, Niles' Register, p. 215. 
 
 Extract from the speech of De Witt Clintox, of New York, delivered in the Sen- 
 ate of the United States on the Mississippi navigation: 
 
 " Many thousand of negroes were also carried off in violation of the treaty (1783,) 
 and a very serious loss was thereby inflicted mi the agricultural port ons of our South- 
 ern brethren." 
 
 Extract from the speech of Joax W. Taylor, of New York, on the Missouri ques- 
 tion. [See 18 vol. Niles' Register, p. 18.] 
 
 " If the weight and influence of the South be increased by the representation of which 
 they consider a part of their property, we do not wish to diminish them. The rigfit by 
 which this property is held is derived from the Federal Constitution; we have neither 
 inclination nor power to interfere with the laws of existing States in this particular; on 
 the contrary, tk-y have not only a rig'it to reclaim their fugitives wherever found, but 
 in the event of 'domestic violence,' (which may God in his mercy firever avert,) the 
 whole strength of the nation is bound to be exerted, if needful, in reducing it to subjec- 
 tion, while we recognize these obligations and will never Jail to perform them,.'' 
 
 Extract from t!ie Hon. Edward EvEnETr's speech on the claim of Marlgny D'Au- 
 terive. [See Congressional Debates, vol. 4, part 1, p. lO.'^S.] This speech was made 
 on the amendment of Mr. Livingston, of Louisiana, making compensation for the loss 
 of slaves in the service of the Government: 
 
 The real merits of the question, said Mr. E., may, in my opinion, be reduced to nar- 
 rower limits then might be supposed from the wide ranj^e jf the discussion. The claim 
 arises under that provision of the Constitution — that amendment of the Constitution — 
 by which it is guarantied that " private property shall not be taken for public use, with- 
 out just CO opensation." Now, sir, by rejecting this amendment, we virtually introduce 
 iiito this provision of the Constitution the qualification " excepting slaves." We make 
 it read, " nor shall private property, excepting slaves, be taken for the public use with- 
 out just compensation." I am prepared to say, without scruple, that if, at the time of 
 discussing and adopting this amendment to the Constitution, it had been proposed to 
 insert such a qualification of it, it would have been fatal, not merely to the amendment, 
 but to the Constitution itself I am willing to leave it to the candor and common sense 
 of every gentleman in the House, whether a proposition going, in effect, to say that 
 "private property, in slaves, might be taken for the public use, without just compensa- 
 tion," would have been entertained for a moment when the amendments to the Consti- 
 tution were adopted. 
 
 An extiact from Mr. Adams' speech in the House of Representatives, May 25, 1836. 
 [See Niles' Register, vol. 50, page 277.] 
 
 " It was by the institution of slavery that the festitution of slaves, enticed by 
 proclamation into the British service, could be claimed as property. But for the insti- 
 tution of slavery, the British commanders would neither have allowed them to join their 
 Standard, nor restored them otherwise then as liberated prisoners of war. But for 
 the inslitution of slavery, there could have been no stipulation that they should 
 NOT BE carried AWAY AS PROPERTY, nor any claim of tsdemnity for the violation of 
 that engagement." 
 
 Mr. Cambreleng, of New York, on the Panama mission. 
 
 «' My doctrines, sir, on the slavery question, are the doctaines of my anc stors, mo- 
 ttified as they were by themselves in an act of confederation. In this one respect, they 
 left society in the political condition in which they found it — a reform would have been 
 
58 
 
 fearful and calamitous — a political revolution with one class was morally impracticable. 
 Consulting a wise humanity, they submitted to the condition in which Providence had 
 placed thein; they settled the questidn in the deep foundations of the Consiilution." — 
 [8ee Cong. Debates, part 2, vol. 2, p. 2135.] 
 
 Extracts from Mr. Fiktcheii's speech in the great meeting in Boston, in September, 
 1835: 
 
 " Time was when such sentiments and such language would not have been breathed 
 in this community. And here, on this hallowed spot, of all places on earth, should they 
 be met and rebuked. Time was, when the British Parliament havm ; declared that 
 •they had a right to bind us in all cases whatsoever,' and were attempting to bind our 
 infant limbs in fetters, when a voice of resistance and notes of dctiance had gone forth 
 from this Hall, then, when Massachusetts, standing for her libertv and life, was alon« 
 breasting the whcile power of Britain, the generous and gallant Southerners came to our 
 aid, and our lathers refused not to hold communion with slave holders. \. hen the 
 Mood of our citizens, shed by a British soldiery, had stained our street*^, and flowed upon 
 the heights which surround us, and sunk into the earth upon the plains of Lexington and 
 Concord, then when he, whose name can never be pronounced by American lips with- 
 out the strongest emotion of sratitude and love to every American heart — when he, that 
 slaveholder, (pointint; to a full length portrait of Washington,) who from this canvass 
 smiles upon you, his children, with paternal benignity, came with oti.er slaveholders to 
 drive the British myrmidons from this city, and in this hall, our fathers did not refuse to 
 hold communion with 'hem. 
 
 *• With slaveholders they formed the Confederation, neither asking nor receiving any 
 right to interfere in their domestic relations; with them they made the Declaration of In- 
 dependence. 
 
 "The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It does not sanction, it does not 
 uphold slavery; and if this doctrine be true, that sacred compact has always been riToral- 
 ly null and void. JN'ot only do they thus absolve the conscience of all good men from 
 the support of the Constitution, but the tendency is to alienate them from it, to diminish 
 their attachment to the Union as one that ought never to have been formed. Th^ir ar- 
 gument and language further tend to dissolve the bonds of I'nion by weakening our re- 
 gard for our Southern brethren." 
 
 E.\tractfrom Mr. HiLLHorst's speech on the treaty of 1794. These remarks are made 
 in reference to the clause in the. treaty of 1793, stipulating a restoration of the slaves 
 carried otl"in violation of the treaty. [See 'carpenter's Debates ] 
 
 "His first inquiry, he said, should be, whether negroes were to be considered as pro- 
 perty. This he believed must be admitted; they were thus recognized by the arti<',!e 
 itself, which says, negroes or other property. Negroes being mentioned amounts only 
 to a specification of one kind of property, as in the Constitution it says, capitation or 
 other direct taxes. 
 
 From the Albany Argus, 1835. 
 
 Extract from Him. John A. Dix's speech, who addressed the anti-abolition meeting of 
 citizens of Albany, held at the (Japitol: 
 
 "It is well known that this was one of the most delicate questions involved in the for- 
 mation of the Constitution. Like every other of the same difiicult character, it was dis- 
 posed of in the general compromise of interests, which were the su'iject of deliberation 
 and adju.stment, and it is not too much to say, that the Union could nevtr have been 
 formed if the right of interference with this qucHtioii, on the part of the General Go\ern- 
 ment, had been insisted on." 
 
 Again: " But I go further; I hold that there is a political oljligation arising out of the 
 compromise of interests, on which the foundations of the Union were laid, to abstain 
 from every species of interference which may tend to disturb the domestic quietude, or 
 put in iiopindtj the rights nf property, which the Constitution was designed to secure. 
 Indeed, I think it would not be difTicult to show that this obligation is of higher order. 
 On this point I desire to be distinctly understood. I do not intend to take a position, 
 which, if maintained, would abridge the fieedoinof discussion or restrain the lil)wrty of 
 the press But I do contend that every principle of politic^il justice, nay, every princi- 
 ple of humanity, demands that discussions shall not be persisted in, when it is manifest 
 that their inevitable consequence is to render insecure the lives and property of those 
 who, by themselves or their predecessors, were parties to the federal compact." 
 
59 
 
 Hon. Thaddeus Stevens appeared for plaintiff in error, and contended that the act of 
 Congress of 1793 embraces all existing and known remedies respecting fugitive slaves. 
 It allows recapture; gives a penalty for obstructing the recapturing or for concealing the 
 fugitive; and a right of action for the services. As it was reported in 16 Peters, .540, 
 that the State cannot legislate on the subject, it follows, her Courts have no jurisdiction. 
 And this would seem necessarily to follow from the decree, that the State cannot regu- 
 late the remedies of the owner seeking his property within her teriitory. — [See 10 Barr, 
 Pennsylvania Reports, p. 114, in the case of Kaufman vs. Oliver] 
 
 Extract from F. A. Tallmaduk's speech at the anti-slavery meeting, held in the city 
 of New York, in October, 1835.— [See Niles' Weekly Register, vol. 49, p. 111.] In 
 speaking of the emancipation of the slaves in the South, he remarks: 
 
 *' Even if they had the power of giving freedom to two millions of slaves, could they 
 think of doing so without compensating their owners." 
 
 The foregoing views were sustained by Mr. John Neal, of Portland, Maine. 
 
 On Wednesday, the 7th of October, 1835, a meeting of the citizens of New York 
 York was held at Tammany Hall. Robert Bogardus was called to the chair, and P. P. 
 Porcells, Secretary. F. A. Tallmadge introduced a series of resolutions, which were 
 unanimously and enthusiastically adopted. 
 
 "Re.-ohed, That our duty to the country, and our Southern brethren in particular, 
 render it improper and inexpedient to agitate a question pregnajst with peiiil and 
 
 DIFFICULTY TO THE COMMON WEAL. 
 
 " RcHiloed, That we take this opportunity to express to our Southern brethren our 
 fixed and unalterable determination to re^st every attempt that may be made to interfere 
 with the relations in which master and slave now stand, or guarantied to them by the 
 Constitution of the United States." 
 
 The following resolutions were unanimously adopted at a meeting of the citizens held 
 at Rochester, on the 13th of November, 1835. [See 49 vol. Niles' Register, p. 210.] 
 
 «' 1 Resolved, That we sincerely desire to witness the total abolition of slavery in these 
 United States, as roov as it cax be done with due heoaud to the hights of the 
 slaveholders, and the welfare of the country. _ 
 
 "3. Resolred, That the question of slavery is one wholli/ within the jurisdiction 
 of the respective Slates, and all interference o>i the part of other States as hii^hly im- 
 proper und impolitic. 
 
 "Levi A. Woodbury, Sec. JAMES GOULD, Chairman. 
 
 The meeting in New York was called to order by the Hon. Campbell P. White, who 
 nominated the Mayor, Cornelius W. Lawrence, as President. Numerous patriotic reso- 
 lutions were offered by the Hon Edward Curtis, and adopted by the unanimous voice 
 of the meeting. The fifth and sixth resolutions were as follows: 
 
 Resohrd, That we shall regard with deep regret the continuance of the excitement at 
 the South, as far as it may be occasioned by the apprehension of danger from the exer- 
 tions of a few misguided abolitionists in our community, because it implies too little con- 
 fidence in the rectitude and pulriotism of the atizens generalli/ at the North, and in- 
 d.'cates tno little reliance on the efficiknci of the law. 
 
 " Resolved. That we are not unmindful of the constitutional obligation of the citi- 
 zem of this Union for mutual defence and protection, as well in the case of domestic 
 violence as of foreign force; and however we may lament the necessity that, m the for- 
 mat/on of our Government, recognized as lawful the condition of slavery in the South- 
 ern St;ites; and however ardently we may hail the day, if it shall ever come, when they 
 may be able and willing to abolish it; till then, and while this Constitution endures, we 
 have no right to transcend its provisions, and as we are fully bound, so are we ever 
 readii to carry them into full effect. 
 
 "Signed. CORNELIUS W. LAWRENCE, Chairman." 
 
 The following letter was received hy the Committee from the late Chancellor Kent. 
 Extract: 
 
 New York, August 24, 1835. 
 
 " Sin: I have just received your note of the 22d instant, and I return my acknow- 
 ledgment for the honor you have done me by the designation you mention. I am en- 
 tirely in opinion with all that portion of my fellow -citizens who are decidedly opposed to 
 the interference by abolitionists with the question and practice of slavery in the South- 
 
60 
 
 cm States; and I approve, for instance, with the resolutions of Boston and Portland on 
 that subject." [See vol. 49, Niles' Reg., p. 10.] 
 
 Extract from the speech of Hariiison G. Otis, delivered in Fanueil Hall, Boston, 
 August 22d, 18.35. Speaking of the formation of anti-slavery societies, he says: 
 
 "Suppose an article had licen proposed to the Coi.gress that framed the instrument of 
 "confederation, proposing that the Northern States should be at liberty to form anti- 
 slavery associations, and deluge the South with homilies upon slavery, how would it have 
 been received ' The gentleman before me has apostrophized the image of Washington. 
 I will follow his example, and point to the portrait of his associate, Hancock, which is 
 pendant by its side. Let us imagine an interview between them, in the ompany of 
 friends, just after one had signed the commission for the other; and in ruminating upon 
 the lights and shadows of futurity, Hancock should have said: ' I congratulate my coun- 
 try upon the choice she has made, and I foresee that the laurels you gained in tlie field 
 of Braddock's defeat will be twined with those which will be earned by you in the war of 
 Independence; yet such are the prejudices in my part of the Union against slavery, that 
 although your name and services may screen you from opprobrium during your I!i'e, your 
 countrynien, when the willow weeps over your tomb, will be branded by mine as man- 
 stealers and murderers, and the stain of it consequently annexed to your memory.' " 
 
 Again : "Another clause in the Constitution is a contract on the part of the non- 
 slaveholding States to seize and restore runaway slaves — but why restore when 
 you have taught the slave that he has a right to freedom?" 
 
 Extract from a letter of Harrison G. Otis, Boston, 17th October, 1831. — [See IViles 
 Register, vol. 45, p. 43.] 
 
 "For my own part, I never doubted that the States of this Union are inhibited by 
 the Federal compact from interfering with the plantation States in the management of 
 their own slaves. The letter and spirit of the Constitution are opposed to it. The 
 clauses which by implication permitted the importation of slaves for ten years, andivliich 
 provided for the deliviri'.t; of fugitive slaves, are nugatory and treacherous, if it can 
 be lawful to annul them " 
 
 Difjloniatic Correspondence. 
 
 Extracts from Mr. Ada:ms' communication to the Right Honorable Lord Viscount 
 Castlereagh, His Majesty's principal Secretary of State for the Department of Foreign 
 Affairs, dated February 17, 1816: 
 
 *' But pr/iv//f [iroperty not having been the subject to legitimate capture with the pla- 
 ces, was not liable to the reason of the limitation; to which the American plenipoten- 
 tiaries, therefore, assented only so far as related to artillery and public propfrty. They 
 did not assent to it as related to slave and other priaie property. It was not a mere 
 verbal alteration which they proposed ; they adhered tn slaves and other private property." 
 
 Again: " But in the present case it will not be pretended that the slaves, where removal 
 is coinplaltud of as a breach of the compact, were the property of either His Majesty, of 
 the naval officers in his service who carried them away, or of any of his subjeits. They 
 tvere peoptrl 1/ rf citizens of the United. States, precisely the species of property which 
 it was expressly stipulated should not be carried away." 
 
 " AxJcrsT 22, 1815. 
 
 " Our object was the restoration of all property, including slaves, which by the usa- 
 ges of war among civilized nations, ought not to have been taken. All private property 
 on shore was of that description. Staves were private property. » * * • 
 
 Upon what ground could Great Britain have refused to restore them' Was it became 
 they had hem seduced away from their masters by the promises of British ofhcers' But 
 had they taken New Orleans, or any other Southern city, would not all the slaves in it 
 have had as much claim to the benefit of such [)rovisions as the fugitives from their 
 masters elsewhere' How, then, could the place, if it had bten taken, have been evacu- 
 ated according to the treaty, without carrying away slaves, if the pledee of such provi- 
 sions ii-as to protect them from being restored to t' eir ownirs 1 It was true, proclama- 
 tions inviting slaves to desert from their masters had l)een issued by British officers. We 
 considered theoi as deviations from the usages if war. We believed that the British 
 Government itself would, when the hostile passions arising from the state of war should 
 subside, consider them in the same light; that Great Britain would then be willing to 
 restore the priperty or indemnify the sulferers by its lo.ss. If she felt bound to make 
 good the promises of her ofhcers to slaves, she might still be willing to do an act of jus- 
 tice, by compensating the owners of the slaves for the properly which had been irregit- 
 
61 
 
 larly taken fifom them — [Mr. Adams' Letter to the Secretary of State; See American 
 State Papers, vol. 4, p. 117, Foreign Relations ] 
 
 Extract of a letter from Mr. Vax Burex, Minister at the Court of St. James, to Mr. 
 Livingston, Secretary of State, dated February 28, 1832, in relation to the slaves on 
 board the brigs Encomium and Enterprize: 
 
 "The Government, while it most sedulously and rigorously guards against the fur- 
 ther introduction of slave, protects at the same time, by remarkable laws, the uights 
 OF THE OWNERS OF THAT SPECIES OF PROPERTY ill the ^tiite.'i where it exists, and per- 
 mils it transfer from one of these States to another." 
 
 " Can it he that this principle of common law is applicable to a colony where, by the 
 law of the place, negroes and their descendant^ who have not been emantipated by their 
 owners are slaves and saleable as otheh puoperty, where the masters rights are am- 
 ply protected by paiticular laws." 
 
 "That the Government (Great Britain) will order the slaves in question to be given 
 up to the claimants, and reasonable indemnity to be made to the latter for iiie damages 
 caused by the destruction of their property, and by the loss of such nf the slaves as 
 MAX xoT BE FOUND." — [Scc Senate Doc, 2d sess. 24th Cong , 2 vol , No. I'-'i ] 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 The Admission of States. 
 
 Vermont was the fiist new State. She claimed, indeed, to be one of the original, 
 making tlie fourteenth, and formed a consritution for herself in the year after the Decla- 
 ration of Independence. But she was considered part of New York, which State, by its 
 Lewi- lature, consented, in 1790, that Vermont should be an independent State, and be 
 ndmitttd into the Union. The application was made to Congress February 19, 1791, 
 and on the 18ih an act was passed declariiTg that Vermont was " received and admitted" 
 into the Union. No constitution was submitted to Congress or inquired for by that body. 
 In fact, the permanent constitution of the new State was not made until 1793. 
 
 Kentucky was the second State aJmiited. The State was formed of territory detach- 
 ed from Virginia by an act ot the Legislature of the State, dated in 1789. In 1791, an 
 act of Congress directed that Kentucky should, on the 1st day of June, 1793," be re- 
 ceived and admitted into the Union as a new and entire member of the United States of 
 America." Th.^ State constitution was not framed when the act of admission was pass* 
 ed. Congress was not in sesaion at the date of the admission, and the Senators and Re- 
 presentatives took their seats before the State constitution had been submitted to Con- 
 gress. It was received after the State was admitted, but no action was taken upon it at all. 
 
 The third State was Tennessee, formed out of territory ceded by North Carolina to 
 the United States, by agreement, consummated in 1790, on condition that it should be- 
 come a Slate. The people of the Territory formed a constitution in 1796, and petitioned 
 Congress for admission as a State. This was the first constitution ever sul)mitted to 
 Congress with an application for admission. But no report was ever made upon it, and 
 an act was passed June 14, 1776, by which Tennessee was admitted into the Union. 
 
 Ohio was the next in order — the fourth of the new States — the first formed of territory 
 to which boundaries were affixed, and previous governments assigned by the exclusive 
 authority of the United States. It was formed out of the Northwestern Territory ceded 
 by Virginia, and accepted by Congress, on the terms prescribed by the ordinance (jf 1787, 
 (before the formation of the present Constitution,) and ratified by Virginia. Congress 
 provided government for the whole territory in 1789, and divided it into two districts in 
 1800. The Eastern District is the present State of Ohio. The right of admission of 
 the States formed out of this territory was provided for by the ordinance, which declaied 
 that vvluiiever any of the said States should have sixty thousand inhabitants, it should 
 be admitted hy its delegates into the Co igress of the United States on an equal footing 
 with the original States, in all respects whatever; and that if consistent with the general 
 interest, '-inies might be admitted with fewer than sixty thousand. In 1803, (April 30,) 
 Congress parsed a law autnorizing the territory to form a constitution and State Govern- 
 ment. In January, 1803, the constitution was presented to Congress, referred to a com- 
 mittee, which never reported on the subject, but a law was passed (February 19, 1803,) 
 which is peculiar in its phraseology. It did not admit Ohio into the Union, but recited 
 
62 
 
 that the people of the Eastern Division of the Northwest Territory had formed for them- 
 selves a constitution and State Government, " whereby the said State has become one of 
 the United States." 
 
 Louisiana was the fifih new State, and here another form of admission was adopted. 
 Louisiana was acquired from France in 18U3, and erected into two Territories by act of 
 Congress in 1804. The Territory of Orleans now forms the State of Louisiana. An 
 act was passed in February, 1811, authorizing the people of the Territory to form a con- 
 stitution and State Government, and providing tliat if the said constitution should not be 
 disapproved by the next Congress, the State should be admitted. The constitution was 
 formed in January, 1812, and the State admitted by law April 8, 1812. The tenth sec- 
 tion of the act of 2(3th March, 1804, " erecting Louisiana into two territories, and pro- 
 viding for a tenuiorary government thereof," prohibited the introduction ef slaves into 
 that territory, from any place, " except by a citizen of the United States tf-nioving into 
 eaid territory for actual settlement, and being at tlie lime of such removal a hitiin fide 
 owner of sncli slave or slaves." [See Laws of the United States, Bioren's edition, 3 v., 
 page GOT, chap. 391, §10.] 
 
 In the case of Indiana, (the sixth new State,) formed out of the Northwestern Terri- 
 tory, another novelty occurred. Congress passed an act (April, 1816,) authorizing the 
 people of ihe 'i'erritory to form a ccnsiitution and State Government. In June of that 
 year a constitution was formed, but before Congress met to act upon the subject, the 
 presidential election occurred, and Indiana elected presidential electors. At the meet- 
 ini^ of Congress, Mr. Hendricks was admitted to take his seat in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives. But the resolution admitting the State into the Uiii'>n was not adojitrd until 
 Dec. 11, and in February ihe votes of Indiana, cast before any act was done recognising 
 her as a member of the Union, were received and counted by both Houses of Congress in 
 convention. 
 
 Mississippi was the seventh new State. It was part of the territory now forming the 
 two States of Alabama and Mississippi, which was ceded to the United Stutcs by Geor- 
 gia and South Carolina. Territory was added both on the north and south by acts of 
 Congress By consent of the State of Georgia, two States weie laid out in the territory. 
 Congress several times refused their as.sent to the formation of a State; but in 1817 
 (March 1) an act was passed authorizing the people of the Western District of Missis- 
 sippi to form a constitution and State government. The constitution was formed in Au- 
 oust of the same year, and in December the State was admitted by resolution. 
 
 Illinois was the eighth i^tate admitted, formed out of the Northwestern Territory, in 
 pursuance of the ordinance of 1787. The act of Congress to enable the people to meet 
 in convention and form a State, &c., was passed in April, 1818. The constitution 
 was adopted in August, and the State admitted by rei?olution in December of the same year. 
 
 Alabama came into the Union the ninth of the new States, formed out of the remain- 
 der or eastern portion of the Mississippi territory after the formation of the State of Mis- 
 sissippi. The separate territory was organized in 1817, on the petition of the legisla- 
 tive council of the territory, an act of Congress was passed in 1819, (March 2,) autho- 
 rizing a convention to form a State, a constitution was adopted in August, and the State 
 was admitted by resolution in December of the same year. 
 
 Maine was the tenth new State. Ft was originally part of Massachusetts, and enti- 
 tled the Di.strict of Maine. By consent of the State of M^issachusetts, given by the 
 Legislature on the HHh June, 1819, the people of the District of Maine formed a con- 
 stitution and State Government in October, and in December petitioned Congress for 
 admission into the Union as an independent State. The attempt was ma !c to combine 
 the admission of the two States of Maine and Missouri in the same bill, in on^er to keep 
 out Maine, unless Missouri was let in. But it failed; and on the :^d of June, 1820, an 
 act was passed declaring that from and after the l.'ith of the same month the State of 
 Maine is declared to lie one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union. 
 
 Missouri was the eleventh of the new States. It was formed out of the Louisiana 
 territory, of which the name was changed to the Mi-souri territory in 1812, and the 
 Southern portion taken off in 1819, and called the Arkansas Territory. 
 
 Arkansas was the twelfth in order of the new States admitted into the Union. It was 
 formed of the southern portion of the Missouri Territory, and the territorial government 
 was established in 1819, (March 2.) Michigan, the tlirteenih State, formed outof the 
 Northwestern Territory, and clairaiiiG! aright of admission under the ordinance of 1787, 
 with a territTial goveinment established as early as 180.5, but with boundaries altered 
 extensively by various acts, made application at the same time with Arkansas for admis- 
 sion, and the two were pushed through together. 
 
03' 
 
 Michiaan was admitted on tlje same day, prospectively, and on condition that a con- 
 vention of delegates, elected by the people of Michigan, for that single purpose, should 
 declare their assent to the act of Congress, establishing the boundary between Michigan 
 smd Ohio. A convention was held, which did accept the act, but great opposition was 
 made again, on the ground that the convention was an unauthorized meeting of private 
 individuals, chosen without any authority from the State Government. The objection 
 was strongly urged, but Congress did not sanction it, and a final act was passed January 
 26, 1837, declaring her admission as one ot the United States of Americi. 
 
 Floriila was the fourteenth State admitted, application being made at the same time for 
 the admission f Iowa, a Northern State, as the fifteenth new State Fluridi was formed 
 out of territory ac(juired by the treaty from Spain, and the territorial (jJovernment was 
 established by Congress, March 30, IS22. The people of Florida held a convention 
 without previous authorization from Congress, made a constitution, and applied for ad- 
 mission into the Union in February, 1839. Congress did not accede to their request 
 for several years, and the Territory remained under its territorial form of government. 
 Under this same constitution of 18:J0, Florida was at length admitted with Iowa, both 
 included in the same bill, March 3, 1845. 
 
 To the ailmission of Iowa nothing more was required but the prorlamation of the 
 President, as in the case of Missouri. But Towa did not assent in the form. A new 
 constitution was formed and presented to Congress, and an act was passed for her ad- 
 mission, dated December 28th, 1846. 
 
 Texas was the sixteenth new State, and the twenty-ninth of the States of the U'nion — 
 an independent Republic — admitted into the Union by joint resolutions, which passed 
 March Ut, 1849. 
 
 Wisconsin, the thirtieth and youngest of the States, was formed out of the North- 
 western Territory, and established a territorial government, April 20, 1836. August 6, 
 1846, an act of Congress was passed authorizing the people of Wisconsin to form a 
 constiiutiim and State Government, and for the admission of the State into the Union. 
 The constitution was framed and presented to Congress, and the State admitted (March 
 3, 1817,) oib condition that the constitution should be acceded to by the qualified elec- 
 tors of the State. 
 
 It will be seen that States have been admiited with and without the previous authori- 
 zation of Congress — formed of territory derived from cession by the individual States — 
 from portions of States previ msly organized as members of the Union — of territory pur- 
 chased from foreign Governments — and one State existing as an independent Republic 
 beyond the Union; that admissions have been refused to the first and second applica- 
 tions — have been granted conditionally and unconditionally; to take effect immediately, 
 to take cff^'ct prospectively, and to take effect contingently at a future day. 
 Number of i>laves in non-slavekolding Slates. 
 With the view of showing the number of slaves in those States generally denominated 
 free States, at the period of the formation of the (Jonstitution and subsequent, we refer 
 to Senate Document, 50.5, containing the cen.?u.s of each State, compiled by the Depart- 
 ment under the resolution of Congress of July 26, 1833, and the supplementary returns 
 for 1840. 'Ihe census of 1850, docs not include slaves in the f?-ee States. 
 
 1790. 1800. 1810. 1820. 1830. 1840. 
 
 New Hampshire 158 8 
 
 Rhode Island 9^ 381 108 48 17 5 
 
 Connecticut 2,759 951 310 97 25 54 
 
 Vermont.. 17 
 
 New York 21,324. ...20,34 3. ... 15,017. ... 10,08-^ 75 3 
 
 New Jersey 11,423. . .12,422. ...10,851 7,5.r/. ...2,254 658 
 
 Pennsylvatxia 3,737 1,706 795 211 403 31 
 
 Delaware 8,887 6,153 4,177 4,509. ...3,292. . .2,613 
 
 iUinois 168 917 747 184 
 
 And yet these nine States, now denominated free States, did, so far as they existed in 
 1790, hold slaves, and acknowledge property in slaves, and the sale of slaves within their 
 boundaries were valid. 
 
 But our limits admonish us to bring these remarks to a close. The incalculable im- 
 portance of the grave questions which we have analyzed, has drawn us into a longer 
 discussion than we had anticipated. But the subject swells under our contempla- 
 tion the more* we mark its bearings upon the present prosperity and the future fate 
 
.v^ 
 
 64 
 
 'J 
 
 \ 
 
 of our beloved country. In truth, no questions have arisen since the establishment 
 of the Federal Government which appear to us to he fraught with more dangers, it they 
 should, in the judgment of the people be erroneously decided upon, by a misapplication of 
 the principles of constitutional law. Intemperance of seclioiuil div.'siuns, wherever found, 
 ought never to meet with an advocate in a patriot It is a most calamitous scourge to 
 any country. The fiercest and most ungovernable passions of our nature — ambition, 
 pride, rivalry, and hate — enter into its dangerous composition, made still more so by itB 
 power of delusicjn, by which its projects against the integrity of the Union are coveted 
 in most insiances, even to the eyes ot its victims, by the specious show o( patriotism. 
 Thus composed, who can estimate its force? Where can thi'Se {eelmgs be touiid i-uffi- 
 cient to couiiternct its advancement ? Is love ot country ? Alas ! the attachment to 
 sectionclimn becomes stronger tban our wliole country. It produces a stnte ii aliena- 
 tion between d:flerent sections of the contederacy, and thus involves us in Ilie vortex of 
 that tremendous comet which — 
 
 " From its horrid hair 
 
 Shook pestilence and war." 
 
 It is now upwards of half a century since the present admirable system of Govern- 
 ment first came tiom the hands of the illustrious sages, whose memories will always be re- 
 vered, who have given us a practical, and, as they hoped, a permanent constitutional com- 
 pact. The Father of his Country did not affix his illustrious name to so palpable an ab- 
 surdity, as to allow a State to arrest the operations of the Federal Government ; nor did 
 the States, when they severally ratified it, do so under the impression that a veto on the 
 laws of the Uiutfd States was reserved to ihem, or that thf-y could exercise it by implica- 
 tion. If this were allowable, it would be just as rational to suj.pose that the i^^Miietary 
 system could continue to perform all its revolutions, with the same beauty, ouier, and 
 harmony, which have been assigned to them by nature, were the laws of projection, at- 
 traction, and giavitalion, to be totally suspt-nded, as it would be to suppose that ihirty 
 confederated States could e.xist in harmony, and perform their federative functions, were 
 each State to have the power of arresting or suspending the operation of the laws of the 
 Confederacy, whenever in the opinion of liie functionaries of any single Stale, it should 
 be thought expedient for the iiileiest of that State to do to. 
 
 The question then is, whether the evils with which the body politic is afflicted, can 
 be mitigated or haimonizetl by any system of dissolution. We think not. All history 
 demonstrates the fact, that confederacies have been the fruitful matrix of internal 
 dis--eiisions and domestic feuds. How was it with the Amphiciyonic League of An- 
 cient Greece ? The jealousies existing between the members ol the League, particu- 
 larly Athens and Sparta, its leading members, (which jealousies, too, grew out of the 
 relations to one another created by the League itself,) involved them in perpetual con- 
 troversies, and finally led to the Peloponnes;ian war, which terminated in iis dirsolution. 
 Modern Lurope aflbrtis us an equally instructive lesson. The history of :he Germanic 
 body, for centuries, is nothing but the history of the bloody and cruel wars among the 
 Princes and State!- which composed it. The scheme of a dissolution of the Union, there- 
 fore, instead of ati'ording a remedy for the evils, which are alleged to be unbearable, 
 would but Sfive to aggravate them, and lender the situation of the country still more 
 deplorable than it would be by the continuation of the present condition of things. 
 
 The mere agitation of the question as regafds the dissolution of the Union must be at- 
 tended with the most serious consequences. 1 he lofty character of our councry (winch is 
 but another name for strength and power) will be mad» to droop by such proceedings ; the 
 national pride humbled ; the high hopes of the people blasted ; their courage tamed and bro- 
 ken ; their prosperity struck to ihe lieart ; their foreign rivals encouraged unto arrogance. 
 
 Th'f Union of these States is the fairest political fabric that has ever been reared by 
 human mind. Its foundation was laid upon " the lives, the fortunes, and sacred honor," 
 of a constellation of as illustrious jiatriots as ever adorned an august assembly of this or 
 any other age. It was cemented with the blood of our fathers. It has made our (Jov- 
 ernment the admiration of the world. It has been a bt aeon-light to bear the beniglited 
 nations of other regions to the altars of republican libeity. It has led the world to be- 
 lieve that man is ca[)able of self-government, and that he was practicing upon its prin- 
 ciples. It has Kiven us a proud elevation abroad as a member of the family of nations; 
 and it has shed a brilliant lustre upon the character of Republics, which the Republics 
 of antiquity never attained. 
 
 Priiiled and publistied by Jno. T. Towers, Wa$liington, at $5 per hundred copies. 
 
 540 
 

 
 \0 
 
 ■J .r 
 
 v^ . 
 
 <> 
 
 ,-^ 
 
 ^'^ ,. 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 .^^ ■\. -.-^ 
 
 ,-0 
 
 
 
 
 v^. 
 
 [" ^ -^ -^^^^^-^^ ^^^ 
 
 <^. 
 
 .-b^v^;/%% 
 
 
 
 
 «^^ ^-^^ 
 
 -\ 
 
 'J, 
 
 ^ ^f^ 
 
 ^;v 
 
 .0 
 
 ^. 
 
 ^m^' 0*°^' 
 
 
 ' <V '^ -V 
 
 /^^^/ ^^^ '^<s 
 
 .:^lf 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 ^ \^ -^ ^V . . „ -^-^ ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 .^0 
 
 
 
 
 •^ rr><^,v■ 
 
 »^g^'%^- 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 V : 
 
 « o 
 
 
.^- o ->«^.- . ■' "- 'fiwM^ J- 
 
 <- 
 
 % 
 
 .f 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 o 
 
 o^ * 
 
 
 ^'^"^ ^5'^^' 
 
 o ^ .^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^;; 
 
 
 
 ..^^' 
 
 
 • ^ 
 
 \ 3 
 
 ' 
 
 <:■,'' 
 
 
 
 n^' ■ 
 
 ^r 
 
 ■y 
 
 
 0° 
 
 ^^Ln- 
 
 f^ c 
 
 \. 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 .\^p 
 
 ^^\ 
 
 / 
 
 °<. 
 
 o 
 
 "V "" 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 ^, 
 
 
 
 
 
 '--; '^ 
 
 <J^ 
 
 c,^ 
 
 
 
 ' ■» 
 
 
 r^3 71 
 |?^I^B^ N. MANCHESTER. 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 837 022 3