SPEECH 
 
 
 HON. JOHN C. TEN EYCK, 
 
 OF NEW JERSEY. 
 
 -o- 
 
 Delivered in the United States Senate, April 2, 1860. 
 
 —-o-— 
 
 The resolutions of Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, 
 relative to State rights, the institution of slavery 
 in the States, the right of citizens of the several 
 States in the Territories of the United States, 
 and the duty of the Federal Government to 
 protect those rights ; the power of the Terri¬ 
 torial Legislatures over the subject of slavery, 
 and the duty of the several States to observe 
 and respect the fugitive slave law, &c., being 
 under consideration— 
 
 Mr. TEN EYCK said: 
 
 Mr. President : So much has been said du¬ 
 ring the present session, in both houses of Con- 
 ress, about the infidelity of several of the 
 tates of this Union to their constitutional du¬ 
 ties and obligations, that I feel constrained to 
 make a few remarks in reference to the State 
 which I have the honor in part to represent. 
 In doing so, however, I desire it to be distinctly 
 understood, that I have no accusations, “rail¬ 
 ing ” or otherwise, to bring, and no excuses or 
 apologies to make, except, perhaps, for the too 
 frequent allusions I may be called upon to make 
 respecting my native State, during the course of 
 these remarks. 
 
 Mr. President, the State of New Jersey has 
 always been devoted to the Union—has always 
 been true and loyal the Constitution—the Con¬ 
 stitution as understood by its framers and the 
 statesmen of that day, including the earlier 
 Presidents, and as subsequently interpreted and 
 expounded by a Marshall and a Story, by a 
 Webster and a Clay. 
 
 It was, sir, a suggestion of hers that led to 
 the meeting of the Convention at Philadelphia, 
 in 1787, which framed the Constitution. 
 
 When the State of Virginia, by her House of 
 Delegates, recommended the meeting of a Con' 
 
 vention at Annapolis, ir^ 1786, it was solely for 
 the purpose of regulating that trade and com¬ 
 merce which, through the strifes, rivalries, and 
 contentions, of the several States under the 
 Confederation, had become well nigh ruined and 
 destroyed. 
 
 When this Convention met, owing to the 
 small number in attendance, there being com¬ 
 missioners from only five States present, viz : 
 New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Dela¬ 
 ware, and Virginia, the Convention proceeded 
 to the transaction of no business other than to 
 prepare a report to the States sending them, and 
 to Congress, in which they say : “ The State of 
 New Jersey had enlarged the object of their 
 appointment, empowering their commissioners 
 to consider how far an uniform system in their 
 commercial regulations, and other important 
 matters , might he necessary to the common in¬ 
 terest and permanent harmony of the several 
 States, and to report such an act on the sub¬ 
 ject as, when ratified by them, would enable 
 the United States in Congress assembled effect¬ 
 ually to provide for the exigencies % of the 
 Union.” k 
 
 The report further states, that the “ commis¬ 
 sioners submit an opinion, that the idea of ex¬ 
 tending the powers of their deputies to other 
 objects than those of commerce, which has been 
 adopted by the State of New Jersey, was an 
 improvement on the original plan , and will de¬ 
 serve to he incorporated into that of a future 
 Convention 
 
 In consequence of this, and the recommend¬ 
 ation of Congress thereon, the Convention met 
 at Philadelphia in May, 1787, and, on the 17th 
 of September following, that great work was 
 accomplished. And yet I believe, sir, that 
 
0 
 
 Virginia has received nearly if not all the 
 credit of this. It has been with her as with 
 the great Alfred; on account of her having 
 done much, (and she has done much,) it has 
 been usual to attribute everything to her. Why, 
 sir, three years before this, New York, by a 
 series of able resolutions in her State Legisla¬ 
 ture, had called public attention to the neces¬ 
 sity of adopting a more efficient form of gov¬ 
 ernment than then existed. But, Mr. Presi¬ 
 dent, it is not my purpose to institute compar¬ 
 isons between the different States of this 
 Union, much less to speak in terms of dis¬ 
 paragement of any one of them. I regard the 
 fame of each as constituting the glory of the 
 whole ; and any discredit cast upon one, sullies, 
 to a certain extent, the common lustre of them 
 all. 
 
 New Jersey, sir, was one of the three first 
 States that adopted the Constitution after it 
 was framed, Pennsylvania and Delaware only 
 preceding her by a few days ; and she did it in 
 the Convention of her people called for that 
 purpose, promptly, cordially, and unanimously, 
 without a dissenting voice. She was the very 
 first to ratify the amendments to that instru¬ 
 ment ; and, sir, she will be the last to abandon 
 it. Should this wisi&t frame of government 
 ever devised by human skill, ability, genius, 
 and philosophy, fall by violence, it will be no 
 hand of hers that strikes the accursed blow. I 
 say the blow accursed, for under no circum¬ 
 stances can I regard the destruction of this 
 Union as excusable, much less as justifiable; 
 for with it will perish the hope and the cause 
 of civil and religious liberty on this continent; 
 and, instead of being an empire, grand, power¬ 
 ful, and magnificent, we will become a number 
 of dissevered States, enfeebled, discordant, and 
 belligerent, whose destiny may be read in the 
 history of those rival States and Governments 
 in the countries south of us, which have en¬ 
 dured for a time, and then expired ; flashing 
 up for a period, and then falling back into dark¬ 
 ness and gloom forever. 
 
 The Constitution is a sacred covenant en¬ 
 tered into by our fathers “ to form a more per¬ 
 fect union, establish justice, insure domestic 
 tranquillity, provide for the common defence, 
 promote the general welfare, and secure the 
 M^fngs of liberty to themselves and their 
 posterity; ” and it must be maintained and 
 kept in its letter and its spirit, in each and 
 every particular—aye, even as regards that 
 «peculiar institution ” which is now making 
 go much trouble in the world. Should attempts 
 be made to interfere with this, where it exists 
 in the several States, under their laws, either 
 by wild fanatics, whose brains may have been 
 roasted by a bare-headed exposure to the suns 
 of Kansas, or in the shape of servile insurrec¬ 
 tions within, or by assaults and violence from 
 without, the people of my State, if need be, will 
 stand by their brethren of the South, side by 
 side, and shoulder to shoulder, as our fathers did 
 
 of old, in the times of fiery trial, when their 
 blood ran together on the same battle plain— 
 when they put forth a common shout for victo¬ 
 ries achieved, and mingled in a common sor¬ 
 row at defeats sustained. 
 
 But the question is not whether slavery or 
 involuntary servitude shall be abolished in the 
 States where it exists by law, against the wishes 
 of the people of those States—no one seriously 
 pretends thi3, save an inconsiderable few, who 
 hate the Union anyhow—but whether it shall be 
 carried into the Territories belonging to the 
 United States. 
 
 The question now is, whether these broad 
 public domains are to be the home of free 
 labor, with its thrift and enterprise ; its trades 
 and handicrafts; its industry and progress; its 
 busy marts and commerce ; its shops, its mills, 
 and factories; its schools, its colleges, and 
 churches; its fields of luxuriant grasses ; its 
 flocks and lowing herds; its golden harvests, 
 resounding with its happy reapers’ song ; or 
 whether they are to be the home of slavery, 
 with its wealthy few, its landless masses; its 
 worn-out, impoverished soils; its waste and di¬ 
 lapidation ; its negro huts and u quarters;” and, 
 it may be, its sigh of sorrow, and its cry of pain. 
 
 The practical question, in fact, is, whether* 
 these Territories are to remain open to all the 
 free white citizens of this Union, native or 
 adopted, for homes and firesides for themselves, 
 their children, and descendants; or whether they 
 are to be closed up, and forever barred against 
 them, by the introduction of African slavery. 
 For, although I do not consider these two differ¬ 
 ent systems of labor so incompatible as that of 
 necessity they must impinge, the one upon the 
 other, so that they cannot continue to exist in 
 different sections of this Union, as* they have 
 existed for the last half century or more, still 
 it is certain that they cannot both exist and 
 flourish together in the same immediate dis¬ 
 trict, in the same place, on the same plantation, 
 in the same field, or in the same workshop. I 
 say African slavery, for I understand it to be 
 conceded, by at least a portion of the friends of 
 this system, that, unless a further supply of this 
 kind of labor can be obtained from other sources 
 than from the States themselves, there is now, 
 practically, an end to the matter, so far as the 
 Territories are concerned. 
 
 Mr. President, slavery, where it exists in the 
 several States, under their laws, must not be 
 interfered with ; but when it is attempted to 
 introduce it into Territories which, since the 
 morning of creation, have been as free as the 
 wild deer bounding over their prairies, it must 
 be calmly, constitutionally, yet firmly and for¬ 
 ever, resisted. Why? 
 
 In a country so extensive as ours, running 
 through so many degrees of latitude, embracing 
 such a variety of climate, and furnishing every 
 kind and species of production—the South 
 having its sugar, cotton, and tobacco; the Mid¬ 
 dle and Western States, their agriculture, mines, 
 
3 
 
 £ 
 
 and manufactories; the East, also its manufacto¬ 
 ries, fisheries, and commerce—there must, of ne¬ 
 cessity, be a great diversity of pursuits and inter¬ 
 ests ; and although, as legislators, we should have 
 regard for the general welfare of the whole: still, 
 we are not to be altogether unmindful of home 
 and its concerns. By the operation of the three- 
 fifths rule, as applied to the right of representa¬ 
 tion in Congress, one portion of this Union now 
 enjoys a larger representation in the House of 
 Representatives than they would otherwise be 
 entitled to. We will stand by the bargain, as 
 made by our fathers. It was a hard one, but 
 it wa3 made upon a compromise ; we will main¬ 
 tain it, as far as it extends. But, I say it in 
 kindness, we will oppose its further extension 
 and increase, as being injurious and unjust to us. 
 
 But, Mr. President, it is said that the Consti¬ 
 tution of its own force and vigor carries slavery 
 into all the Territories which have been ac¬ 
 quired since the period of its adoption. If this 
 be so, then there is an end of the matter. But 
 does it do so ? It nowhere does so by express 
 letter. It does not do so by necessary impli¬ 
 cation. It was not the understanding of its 
 framers, or meant and intended at the time that 
 it should do so. In order properly to under¬ 
 stand this, we must cast our minds back to 
 the time of the formation of the Constitution. 
 We had just emerged from a struggle for ex- ! 
 istence, followed by a feeble Confederacy 5 the 
 idea of acquiring new territory never entered 
 into the head of any one at that time; the 
 public sentiment was existence , not extension. 
 The settled portion of the States constituted 
 only a small strip on the Atlantic ocean, and 
 all between that and the Mississippi river was 
 a vast wilderness, which it was supposed ages 
 would require to fill up and people. That was 
 not, like*ours, a day of rapid progress. The 
 use of steam, as applicable to motive power 
 on land and water, had not then been discov¬ 
 ered. The magnetic telegraph had not sent 
 its fiery sparks to every corner of the land. 
 Indeed, so little were the Territories lying act¬ 
 ually within the limits of the Union then re¬ 
 garded, that no allusion to them whatever was 
 made in the Articles of Confederation, framed 
 only ten years before. And we all know that 
 when the Territory of Orleans was acquired 
 by purchase from France, in 1803, Mr. Jeffer¬ 
 son, who was the chief negotiator of the treaty, 
 was of opinion that there was no constitutional 
 provision authorizing it, and recommended his 
 friends in Congress to say as little on the sub¬ 
 ject of its constitutionality as possible, stating 
 that the difficulty could be cured by an amend¬ 
 ment to the Constitution. Sir, the Constitution 
 was not framed with a view to any such pur¬ 
 pose. 
 
 I have thought that a strange doctrine ad¬ 
 vanced in a recent celebrated decision, which 
 holds, that that provision of the Constitution 
 which gives the power to Congress 11 to make 
 all needful rules and regulations respecting 
 
 the territory of the United States,” does not 
 apply to such territory as has been acquired 
 since the Constitution was framed; and yet 
 that it carries slavery into those newly-acquired 
 Territories, without one word being contained, 
 therein referring to such territory, or the ac¬ 
 quisition of any such having been even contem¬ 
 plated at the time. 
 
 But, sir, I do not intend, at this time, to 
 enter into a legal argument on this subject. 
 Certain it is, that at that day the extension of 
 slavery was not desired or contemplated. It 
 was regarded on all sides as an evil—an evil 
 that had in part been forced upon the colonies 
 by the British Crown, against the wishes of 
 some of them, the King sometimes vetoing the 
 acts of the Colonial Legislatures intended to 
 prohibit it. The fathers of the Republic so 
 regarded it—Southern as well as Northern 
 statesmen — the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, 
 the Madisons, and the Monroes, as well as the 
 Adams’s, the Danes, and their compeers. To 
 cite no others, Mr. Jefferson, in his Notes on 
 Virginia, writing on this subject, says: 
 
 u I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; 
 that His justice cannot sleep forever ; that, considering num¬ 
 bers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the 
 wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible 
 events ; that it may become probable by supernatual inter¬ 
 ference ! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side 
 with us in such a contest.” 
 
 On another occasion he said : 
 
 “ The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of 
 desire in these colonies, where it was unhappily introduced 
 in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement 
 of the slaves, it is necessary to exclude further importations 
 from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by 
 prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount 
 to prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by h;s Majesty’s 
 negative.” 
 
 Listen to what the Father of his Country 
 thought. In his celebrated letter to General 
 Lafayette, General Washington said : 
 
 “ I agree with you cordially in your views in regard to 
 negro slavery. I have long considered it a most serious 
 evil, both socially and politically, and I should rejoice in any 
 feasible scheme to rid our States of such a burden. The 
 Cor«|ss of 1787 adopted an ordinance which prohibits the 
 exi^Rce of involuntary servitude in our Northwestern Ter- 
 ritorFforever. I consider it a wise measure. It met with the 
 approval and assent of nearly every member from the States 
 more immediately interested in slave labor. The prevailing 
 opinion in Virginia is against the spread of slavery in cmr 
 new Territories, and I trust we shall have a Confederacy ok 
 free States.” 
 
 How explicit and emphatic ! 
 
 And yet, it is now said Washington was in 
 error 5 that he did not understand tbe nature of 
 this institution ; that if he had lived in this our 
 day he would have entertained different views 
 and advanced different opinions in relation to 
 it. Sir, this falls strangely on our ears. The 
 Father of his Country has left the footprints of 
 his heroism on our soil, and his doctrines and 
 his teachings have sunk deep into our hearts. 
 Others may do as they choose; even they who 
 have more particularly the custody of his fame, 
 and even his sacred bones in their keeping; 
 but as for us, we will never banish from our 
 hearts this object of our veneration and affec¬ 
 tion. 
 
4 
 
 b 
 
 Sir, slavery was then regarded as an evil. 
 Uniform testimony was borne to that; but it 
 was an evil that had become so interwoven 
 with our political and social systems, that it 
 could not be eradicated at once; it could not be 
 destroyed by violence, without leaving the body 
 politic mangled and bleeding. It was a sort 
 of cancerous malady, that could not be torn out 
 by the roots, but had. to be left to the several 
 States within whose borders it existed—and it 
 existed in almost all of them—to be managed 
 and regulated by themselves, at their own time 
 and in their own way, either by the use of the 
 knife, lopping it off at once, or by the aid of 
 emollients, by which, in time, it might be cured 
 and dissipated. We had the institution at that 
 time in the State of New Jersey; and it was not 
 until our act of 1820, by which it was provided 
 that all children born of slaves subsequent to 
 the year 1804 should be held as servants— 
 females until they attained the age of twenty- 
 one, and males until they arrived to the age of 
 twenty-five—that we became, in a measure, re¬ 
 lieved of this system. In 1850, at the time of 
 the last general census, there were about three 
 hundred and thirty slaves in the State; and at 
 this day I suppose there are not more than a 
 score; some still existing, born prior to the act 
 of 1804, which did not apply to them, and who 
 are now too old to be manumitted by our gen¬ 
 eral acts of manumission. *But death is fast 
 manumitting them all; and, in the course of a 
 few years, there will not be a single person of 
 this description on our soil. We have had the 
 institution, and I am not disposed to arraign or 
 assail either the representatives or the people 
 of other States who have not been so fortunate 
 as we have been in getting rid of it. Sir, it 
 was hoped and confidently expected, at the 
 time we passed our law, that the other States 
 of this Union would also enact laws, as many 
 of them did, by which this institution and this 
 system would be gradually abolished and^ne 
 away with ; and I believe, had it not be^H in 
 part, for the unwarrantable interference ofJper- 
 sons in sections where they had no right to in¬ 
 terfere, but mainly owing to the increased value 
 of cotton, and the consequent rise in the price 
 of negroes, many a man who is now held in 
 bonds would have been walking boldly forth, 
 by the consent of his master, on the high road 
 to freedom. 
 
 But, Mr. President, there is other and con¬ 
 temporaneous evidence, that this kind of servi¬ 
 tude was then regarded as an evil, and not to 
 be extended. 
 
 Sir, at the time of the framing of the Consti¬ 
 tution, all the territory conceded to belong to 
 the United States was free—I believe every 
 foot of it. 
 
 In 1787, the very year the Constitution was 
 framed, on the 13th of July, Congress passed 
 the famous ordinance, by which all the terri¬ 
 tory northwest of the Ohio was dedicated to 
 freedom forever; out of which have arisen a ■ 
 
 family of States, which, for progress, wealth, 
 and civilization, are unparalleled in the history 
 of the worlcl! Young giants, before whose 
 majestic step the wilderness has fled away, like 
 the shadows of night before the rushing, rising 
 morn. I am aware, sir, that there were other 
 vacant unpatented lands, within the chartered 
 limits of several of the Southern States, lying 
 south of the Ohio ; but these had not been as 
 yet ceded to the Government of the Union, and 
 were claimed by the States within whose bor¬ 
 ders they were. 
 
 This territory had been ceded to the United 
 States by Virginia, herself a slave State, with 
 this understanding by her statesmen, who, ac¬ 
 cording to the testimony of General Washing¬ 
 ton, were opposed to the spread of slavery in 
 the Territories. Mr. Jefferson himself had 
 drawn the first plan of an ordinance for this 
 purpose, and both Northern and Southern men 
 approved of it. 
 
 Sir, it was in accordance with the tone, the 
 temper, and spirit of the times. It was in ac¬ 
 cordance with the principles of the Declaration 
 of Independence, although that sacred instru¬ 
 ment has recently been called a mere string of 
 11 glittering generalities.” It was in accordance 
 with the principles on which the struggle for 
 freedom, during a seven years’ war, had been 
 conducted. It was in accordance with the pub¬ 
 lic sentiment and feeling at the time, and every¬ 
 where. 
 
 I have said it was in accordance with the tone, 
 the temper, and spirit of the times. The Consti¬ 
 tution was framed in the very face of this ordi¬ 
 nance. It was passed on the 13th of July, 1787, 
 by the Congress of the Confederation, sitting in 
 New York. The Convention to frame the Con¬ 
 stitution was sitting in Philadelphia at that very 
 time. Many of the leading members of that 
 Congress were also members of the Conven¬ 
 tion. Did the passage of this ordinance create 
 any such excitement as we witness nowadays ? 
 Did the Convention disband, or break up in a 
 row ? Were there any thunder tones then ut¬ 
 tered, such as we now hear in the distance, or 
 even muttering over our heads ? Was the feeble 
 ligament of the Confederation, which already 
 held the thirteen original States, like so many 
 stars fixed in their places, broken and de¬ 
 stroyed ; and were they sent glaring forth, 
 like comets, rushing madly and wildly ? Nol 
 nothing of the sort. The Convention sat 
 on. It finished its labors on the 17th of Sep¬ 
 tember following. The next year, the work was 
 submitted to the people of the several States 
 for ratification and adoption, and the following 
 year the new Government swung into its orbit j 
 and one of the very first acts of the new Con¬ 
 gress, under the Constitution, was to reaffirm 
 this ordinance of 1787, by altering its provis¬ 
 ions, so as to make ii conform to the new order 
 of affairs. 
 
 But it has been said, and I believe has been 
 repeated here to-day, that the doctrines held by 
 
5 
 
 the Republicans are different from those held 
 by our fathers ; that they are sectional. Why, 
 sir, they were not sectional in 1787. They were 
 then avowed both North and South. It is said 
 that they are modern. Sir, they are older than 
 the sacred charter of our liberties itself. The 
 same doctrine that we contend for this day is 
 the doctrine that Jefferson and his compeers 
 contended for, which they have placed upon 
 record in the ordinance of 1787; and from that 
 day to this, the State from which I come has 
 held this doctrine. It is the same which was 
 promulgated by the great Commoner, Henry 
 Clay, when he declared that no power on earth 
 could induce him to plant slavery in any Ter¬ 
 ritory which then was free. 
 
 Sir, it was not until after this, not until new 
 Territories came to be acquired, that a change 
 came over the spirit of our dream. But the 
 North has never changed. It holds the same 
 position now that it held then ; such as I trust 
 it ever will maintain. 
 
 Before leaving this subject, I beg leave to 
 call the attention of the Senate to certain 
 resolutions, passed in the State of New Jer¬ 
 sey in 1849 — some seven years before the 
 new Republican party, as such, sprang, fully 
 equipped and fully armed, into the held — 
 for the purpose of showing that this doctrine 
 was then enunciated. And I will say in ad¬ 
 vance, that these joint resolutions were passed 
 by a Whig Legislature, several Democrats 
 voting for them ; and they were approved by a 
 Democratic Governor, who now occupies a dis¬ 
 tinguished position upon the bench of our 
 Supreme Court. The resolutions which passed 
 our State in 1849 are as follows: 
 
 “ Resolutions against the extension of slavery into free lerri- 
 
 tory, and the traffic in slaves in the District of Columbia. 
 
 “ Whereas this Legislature, representing the views and 
 opinions of the people of New Jersey, believing the institu¬ 
 tion of human slavery to be a great moral and political evil, 
 and, if unrestrained by the General Government, is calcu¬ 
 lated to sap the foundation of our social and political institu¬ 
 tions : Therefore, 
 
 “ Resolved by the Senate and General Assembly of the State 
 of New Jersey, That while we would refrain from all manner 
 of interference in the institution of slavery in the States 
 where it constitutionally exists, yet we would peaceably 
 but firmly resist, by all constitutional means, its further ex¬ 
 tension . 
 
 “ 2. Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in the 
 Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby, re¬ 
 spectfully requested to use their most strenuous efforts to 
 secure, in any law that may be passed for the establishment 
 of State or Territorial Governments, within the bounds of 
 our newly acquired Territory of New Mexico and California, 
 a fundamental conditioner provision, that slavery, or in¬ 
 voluntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall 
 be forever excluded from the said Territory. 
 
 “ 3. Resolved, That the existence of the traffic in slaves in 
 the District of Columbia is inconsistent with the theory of 
 our national institutions, and a reproach to us as a people, 
 and ought, in the opinion of this Legislature, to be speedily 
 abolished ; and that our Senators and representatives be 
 requested to use their influence in favor of this desirable ob¬ 
 ject, 
 
 “ 4. Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor of this 
 State be, and he is hereby, respectfully requested to transmit 
 certified copies of the foregoing resolutions to each of our 
 Senators and Representatives in the Congress of the United 
 States from this State, with a request that they be laid be¬ 
 fore the bodies to which they respectively belong. 
 
 “ Approved March 2,1849.” 
 
 This occurred the year before the act of Con¬ 
 
 gress was passed abolishing the traffic in slaves 
 in the District of Columbia—a year before the 
 institution of those measures usually denomi¬ 
 nated the compromise measures of 1850. 
 
 Before resuming my seat, I wish to say a few 
 words on the subject of the fugitive slave law. 
 That subject is embraced within the scope of 
 the resolutions which have been submitted by 
 the honorable Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. 
 Davis.] In New Jersey, we have always re¬ 
 garded the act of Congress passed in 1793, re¬ 
 specting the rendition of fugitive slaves, as ob¬ 
 ligatory upon us. No grave doubt about its 
 constitutionality has ever been raised or agitated 
 there. I recollect that many years ago, a quar¬ 
 ter of a century at least, a case occurred which 
 was referred to some two weeks since by the 
 honorable Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] in 
 a speech made by him. He referred to a case 
 that had been decided by Chief Justice Horn- 
 blower, of our State; and I understood him to 
 say that his recollection of that case was, that 
 Chief Justice Hornblower had held this act to 
 be unconstitutional. The case occurred before 
 the chief justice at chambers, on habeas corpus. 
 There has been no report of it. It occurred 
 about the time I came to the bar 5 and my rec¬ 
 ollection is, that the chief justice decided the 
 cause and set the fugitive at liberty, on the 
 ground of defective evidence in support of the 
 claim ; but, in giving his opinion, he may 
 have thrown out some ideas of his own with 
 respect to the unconstitutionality of the act; 
 
 Jbut I cannot say now how that was. 
 
 Aside from that, however, there has never, so 
 far as I know, been any question raised in our 
 State with respect to the constitutionality of 
 that law. We have always acknowledged the 
 binding force of that provision of the Constitu¬ 
 tion which declares that u no person held to 
 service or labor in one State, under the'laws 
 thereof, escaping into another, shall, in conse¬ 
 quence of any law or regulation therein, be 
 discharged from such service or labor, but shall 
 be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom 
 such service or labor may be due.” Why ? For 
 the reason that it was one of the terms of the 
 compact or agreement on which the Union was 
 framed. This was the understanding at the 
 time ; and this is what its framers meant and 
 intended, let its language be what it may. The 
 Constitution of the United States was not a 
 mere contract entered into between two sharp 
 dealers, so framed and contrived as that one 
 party might get the advantage of the other 
 upon a technical construction ; but it was a 
 broad, fundamental frame of Government, en¬ 
 tered into by high-toned, patriotic men, for the 
 purpose of settling a Government for themselves 
 and their posterity; and it is to be construed 
 and interpreted according to the way and in 
 the manner in which they meant and intended 
 that it should be done. 
 
 I believe that the States, as such, are not 
 bound to furnish the means of enforcing this 
 
6 
 
 provision of the Constitution by the agency of 
 their own officers and tribunals; but they are 
 as clearly bound to surrender up fugitives from 
 labor, when so adjudged, as they are prohibited 
 by this provision from discharging them from 
 labor due in the State from which they may 
 have escaped; and I think it also clear that the 
 people of the several States, upon whom the 
 Federal Government, within the scope of its 
 authority, acts individually and directly, are 
 bound to assist in the enforcement of its author¬ 
 ity, whenever called upon in due form of law. 
 For instance, if a marshal should be resisted in 
 making an arrest, and in the proper execution 
 of this law should call on a citizen, a bystander, 
 for aid, it would become his duty, however dis¬ 
 agreeable or unpleasant it might be, as one of 
 the posse comitatus, to assist in the enforcement 
 of it. 
 
 Slavery, at the time of the adoption of the 
 Constitution, existed in most of the States of 
 this Union—nearly all. No such provision as 
 the one referred to existed in the Articles of 
 Confederation, and it was felt to be a grievous 
 inconvenience by the slaveholding States. In 
 several of the States, no aid whatever was al¬ 
 lowed to the owners, and sometimes open resist¬ 
 ance was made to the recovery of such fugitives. 
 This provision, then, had a meaning, and was 
 intended to meet the difficulty, and put an end 
 to the complaint. The South insisted on it; 
 the Eastern and Middle States agreed to it; 
 and in the State which I have the honor in part 
 to represent, we have acknowledged its obliga¬ 
 tion and force. The concession was made, and 
 we will abide by and adhere to it. Let our 
 Southern brethren not forget that it was made 
 with some sacrifice of feeling, and for their 
 benefit and advantage. 
 
 Under this provision of the Constitution and 
 the act of Congress of 1793, fugitives from la¬ 
 bor have been surrendered up in our State to 
 the party to whom their labor was due. We 
 have always “ kept the bond.” It was a cov¬ 
 enant, with many others, made understanding- 
 ly, made on a compromise, made to form a more 
 perfect union, and to escape from the debility, 
 antagonism, and ruin, of the wretched and feeble 
 Government of the Confederation, under which 
 all the trials and all the glories of the Revolu¬ 
 tion were in danger of being lost forever. 
 
 But we hold, with others, that if a doubt 
 about the constitutionality of this act of Con¬ 
 gress could be raised, it is now too late to raise 
 it; it has been settled by repeated decisions of 
 the courts and the practice of the Government 
 for many years, and so it must and ought to 
 stand. But, sir, this is not all; I wish to say 
 something on the subject of the action of the 
 State which I have the honor in part to repre¬ 
 sent. In 1836, the Legislature of New Jersey, 
 under its power to pass regulations of police, 
 passed an act concerning fugitive slaves. It 
 was re-enacted in the revision of 1846. This 
 act is now in force. I have it before me, and 
 
 I beg leave to refer to a few of its most import¬ 
 ant sections, for the purpose of showing what 
 the nature of this statute is. 
 
 The first section authorizes the arrest of the 
 fugitive on a warrant to be issued by a judge 
 of the common pleas or a justice of the peace, 
 on application of a claimant, his agent, or at¬ 
 torney, accompanied by an affidavit that the 
 fugitive has escaped from service, and stating 
 the claimant’s title to the service of such fugi¬ 
 tive. 
 
 By another section, it is required that the 
 sheriff or constable receiving and executing 
 such warrant shall, without unnecessary delay, 
 carry the person arrested before the judge, ac¬ 
 cording to the exigency of the warrant; and it 
 is further enacted, that any sheriff or constable 
 who shall refuse or wilfully neglect so to do, 
 shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $500, or 
 imprisonment for a term not exceeding six 
 months. 
 
 By another section, it is provided that the 
 hearing of the case shall be before the judge 
 issuing the warrant, and two other judges 
 called by him to his assistance, unless either 
 party shall demand a trial by jury, when a 
 venire is to be issued by the judge, directed to 
 the sheriff of the county, to summon a jury of 
 twelve men, who shall pass upon the claim. 
 
 By another section, it is provided that if the 
 judge shall authorize the removal of a fugitive 
 without the title of the claimant being first de¬ 
 cided upon in his favor, he shall be subject 
 to a fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment 
 -not exceeding two years; and any judge re¬ 
 fusing to perform any of the duties required by 
 the act shall be liable to pay a sum not exceed¬ 
 ing $500. And the act creates other fines and 
 penalties for arresting a person as such fugitive 
 without a warrant or other legal authority for 
 the purpose, under some act of the Legislature, 
 or of the Congress of the United States. 
 
 I am familiar with several cases that have oc¬ 
 curred in the State of New Jersey, where slaves 
 have been delivered up under the act of the Leg¬ 
 islature of our own State, upon proceedings had 
 before county judges. The last case that I recol¬ 
 lect to have occurred was the case of three fugi¬ 
 tives claimed by Mr. John Roth, I think of 
 Cecil county, Maryland. Mr. Roth applied to 
 the tribunal furnished by our State laws—not 
 to the tribunal furnished by the act of Congress. 
 The case was tried before a jury, a majority 
 of whom were composed of men acting with the 
 same political party to which I at that time be¬ 
 longed, and which I believe I hold the princi¬ 
 ples of at this time—the old Whig party. The 
 jury rendered a verdict in favor of the claimant, 
 and Mr. Roth took his fugitives out of the State 
 without difficulty, and without interruption. 
 Nay,more: the Representative from the second 
 Congressional district of my State, now in Con¬ 
 gress, [Hon. John L. N. Stratton,] was the 
 attorney of the claimant on that occasion, and 
 prosecuted the case with promptness, fairness, 
 
7 
 
 "V 
 
 and fidelity. During the late canvass which 
 took place, and resulted in his election, it was 
 made a point against him by his political oppo¬ 
 nents, that he had been engaged in a trial that 
 “ had sent three fellow-beings back to the land 
 of bondage.” And what was the result? Why, 
 that in the county of Burlington, where he lives, 
 he received a majority of near eighteen hundred 
 votes over his competitor—nearly eight hundred 
 majority more than any other man since my 
 recollection has ever before received in that 
 county, in either a national, State, or county 
 election. Sir, the people of his district, although 
 they are not in favor of this institution, are still 
 in favor of executing the laws, and will main¬ 
 tain and support them. I do not pretend to say 
 that my friend in the other branch of Congress 
 had his majority increased in consequence of 
 the part he took in the prosecution of that 
 claim; but I do mean to assert that in his dis¬ 
 trict it did not cost him a single vote; and yet 
 there is not a man in that district, who, so far 
 as he himself is personally concerned, would 
 have any part or lot in the holding of a man as 
 a chattel, or as property in any way. 
 
 Before taking my seat, I will, in this con¬ 
 nection, refer to another statute of our State. 
 It is to be found in Nixon's Digest , and is as 
 follows : 
 
 “ It shall be lawful for any person, not an inhabitant of 
 this State, who shall be travelling to or from or passing 
 through this State, or coming into this State from any other 
 of the United States, and having a temporary residence in 
 this State, to bring with him or her any slave or servant, 
 and on removal,or leaving this State, to take such slave or 
 servant out of this State : Provided, That the number of 
 
 such slaves or servants shall not exceed the usual number 
 of personal or household slaves or servants kept and main¬ 
 tained by said traveller or temporary resident.” 
 
 Now, I refer to these matters and statutes, in 
 the hearing of Senators from the different States 
 of this Union, to show that we have kept our 
 part of the covenant, and to ask them to keep 
 theirs—not to violate it; not to extend or at¬ 
 tempt to extend it to matters and things and 
 places where it does not belong, and was not 
 ‘meant to apply. 
 
 Sir, the people of that State, as well as the 
 people of the Middle and Western States gen¬ 
 erally, are opposed to all extravagance and all 
 ultraism. They are opposed to all extremes. 
 They will stand as a rock to beat back and re¬ 
 pel every wave of fanaticism, whether it comes 
 surging down in power from the North, or 
 lashing up in fury from the South. But, sir, 
 they would prefer, far prefer, standing as friends 
 upon the fields of Monmouth, Trenton, German¬ 
 town, and Brandywine, and reaching forth 
 their arms to their brethren of Bunker Hill, 
 Saratoga, and Concord, on the one hand, and 
 to their brethren of Yorktown, Guilford Court¬ 
 house, and King’s Mountain, on the other; beg 
 them to cease their threatening menaces ; beg 
 them to cease their crimination and recrimina¬ 
 tion ; beg them to cease tbeir unholy fraternal 
 strife; beg them to stand by the compromises 
 of the Constitution ; beg them to join their 
 hands once more in a long, lasting, and frater¬ 
 nal clasp ; beg them to do this for the Union— 
 for the sake of that Union upon which our 
 truest, noblest destiny on earth depends. 
 
 % 
 
 (b 
 
 4 
 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1860. 
 
 REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. 
 
 HON. PRESTON KING, N. Y., Chairman. 
 
 “ J. W. GRIMES, IOWA. 
 
 “ L. F. S. FOSTER, CONN. 
 
 On the part of the Senate. 
 
 “ E. B. WASHBURNE, ILLINOIS. 
 
 During the Presidential Campaign, Speeches 
 ing reduced prices: 
 
 HON. JOHN COVODE, PENN., Treasurer . 
 
 “ E. G. SPAULDING, N. Y. 
 
 “ J. B. ALLEY, MASS. 
 
 “ DAVID KILGORE, INDIANA. 
 
 “ J. L. N. STRATTON, N. J. 
 
 On the part of the House of Reps. 
 
 and Documents will be supplied at the follow- 
 
 Eight pages, per hundred. $0.50 
 
 Sixteen u “ 1.00 
 
 Twenty-four u 1.50 
 
 Address either of the above Committee. 
 
 GEORGE HARRINGTON, Secretary »