is the product of the intellect and patriotism of Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and their illustrious compeers; and it is stamped with the approba ion of Franklin and Washington.

Cotemporaneously with the adoption of the Constitution, the different Legislaiures accompanied their assent with a flood of amendments. Many of them were most minute, and some of them were even subject to the charge of frivolity. The free States were at that time among the foremost in their variety of suggestions: but not a single exception was taken by any State to this provision.

But its principle may be defended without a recurrence to the authority of the patriots to whom I have referred. It enacts no new principle. Previous to the Declaration of Independence, a slave who fled from one colony to another still remained the property of his master, and the master had a right to reclaim him. Between the 4th of July 1776 and the 9th of July 1778, when the articles of confederation were adopted, the right of the master remained the same. After the adoption of the Articles of the Confederation, and before the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the right still continued inviolate, not in consequence of any provision in the Articles of Confederation, but by virtue of the well-known and established laws of nations as then understood and acknowledged throughout the civilized world. Thus it will be seen that this right is coeval with the existence of slavery in this country, that it has been sanctioned by all the Colonial, State, Confederate dand Federal Governments which have ever existed in the United States.

But I will go farther and state in the most broad and comprehensive sense, that it is an acknowledged principle of the laws of nations, that slaves are property, and that whenever a slave flees from one country and seeks refuge in another, the State from which the slave has fled has the right to demand the delivery up of the fugitive; and if such delivery be refused, has also the right to pursue and obtain it by force of arms. This doctrine has the authority of the highest Courts of Judicature in Great Britain and of the Supreme Court of the United States; and is sanctioned by the authority of the most eminent judges and civilians who ever lived in this or the mother country, including Sir William Scott and Chief Justice Marshall. It is recognised by the State Legislatures, (including Pennsylvania) who before the existence of the Federal Constitution abolished slavery; by the act of Parliament of 4 & 5 William, 1833, abolishing slavery in the West Indies; by the writers on the Civil Law; by Vattel in his Treatises on the Laws of Nations, (B. 2, chap. v. page 160); and by Mr. Wheaton in his Treatise on International Law, (part 4th, chap. I. page 339-40, id. 177 to 187.)

This doctrine has also the sanction of the authority of the two most powerful nations of the present day. The treaty of Ghent, signed Dec. 24th, 1814, provided that all territory, places and possessions, taken by either party from the other during the war, should be restored without delay. These terms did not include a claim upon Great Britain for American slaves taken by British arms during the

war; but the United States affirmed that they were entitled to the restoration of those slaves or full compensation for them. It was subsequently left to the arbitrament of the Emperor of Russia, who, on the 22nd of April, 1822, decided that the United States were entitled to full compensation for the slaves so taken. The government of Great Britain ratified the award and paid to the United States the sum of $1.200.000. And it should not be forgotten that these treaties were concluded under the diplomacy of John Quincy Adams, first as Commissioner at Ghent, and subsequently as Secretary of State under Mr. Monroe.

What is now asked from us by the Southern States? Nothing more but that we should not aid and assist their slaves in running away, and harboring them as fugitives. It is not necessary at this time to enter into a history of the manner in which the emancipation of slaves was effected in Great Britain. Mr. Wilberforce had for thirty years brought the subject before Parliament, without making the slightest impression upon either the government or the public mind. He contented himself with submitting the measure and having it decisively rejected from time to time as often as it was presented. His conduct at the York election in 1807, towards Lord Milton, had led many to doubt the extent of interest which that great champion of emancipation himself took in the measure. Upon the accession of William the Fourth to the throne in 1830, the Tories and Whigs ran a race on this subject, in order to secure public sympathy and support. If it had been to emancipate the same number of slaves living at home amongst themselves, it cannot admit of a doubt that it would never have been consummated.

But under all the excitement in Great Britain, it never was proposed to emancipate the slaves without a full and ample compensation to the master for the property which he held in them. British statesmen, writers and impudent emissaries have done much to produce the present state of public opinion among the Abolitionists in this country; they have interfered most unjustifiably in our domestic affairs, but let us do them justice, they never encouraged the fugitive slave to run away, nor proposed any system of emancipation by which the master should be deprived of his property without just satisfaction. The paternity of such a measure is an honor that belongs exclusively to the American Abolitionist.

The wilful harboring of a fugitive slave is a grave offence in morals as well as law, and those who commit this offence, can exculpate themselves upon no other ground than the recognition of a higher authority than the Constitution and laws of the Union, the benefits of which they are continually enjoying, and which in all other matters, they seek for their own protection. I freely admit that among the few Abolitionists in our community, are to be found the most exemplary men in private life, but their purity of character is of no value when they jeopard all that is dear to us.

The present Fugitive Bill should be honestly carried out by the Judicial authority of the country, and the exercise of that power

should be strengthened by public opinion. This is the issue; if we do not cheerfully concede this ground, we violate the original Federal compact and give the South just ground of complaint. I have no respect for the intelligence or motives of the man who will attempt to evade this question and say there is no danger, and that the free States can continue to do so as they have done and preserve the Union.

There is no doubt, but that heretofore the act of Congress, passed the 12th of February, 1793, enabling the master to claim his slave, has been viewed by many in the free States with jealousy and dislike; and many rules of judicial construction have been established, which tend to defeat and not to carry out the object of the Law. A discrimination has been made between fugitives from justice and fugitives from service and labor, that is totally unauthorised; this evil must be remedied, and the same salutary rules which are recognised in detaining a fugitive from justice, should be extended to the other class of fugitives from labor. It has been said that when a master claims his fugitive slave in a free State, he chooses his own time and ought to be ready with all his proofs. This position is utterly untenable. The slave chooses his own time to run away, the master is compelled to seize him whenever he finds him or to permit him to escape; but if the fact were so, the doctrine founded upon it is anomalous and totally without authority. The Commonwealth and the United States select their own time to prefer a charge against an alleged culprit, but they have the power to continue the case without challenge or cause being shown, and in the meantime keep the defendant in prison. No similar counter privilege exists with the defendant. A private suitor has the right at Common Law to continue his case without challenge or cause being shown; but the defendant has no such privilege. It should also be borne in mind that when a private suitor suffers a non-suit, he can renew his action; but when the fugitive slave is discharged, he immediately escapes, and all hope of recovery is lost. The Court will detain a fugitive from justice for six months to obtain the requisite proof against him; but heretofore the owner of a slave has been denied 24 hours to obtain his evidence or to supply the most trivial defect that may exist in the proof. I repeat with great respect for the enlightened Judges who have made these decisions, that it is all wrong, and that it is their duty as it should be their pleasure, fairly and honestly to carry out the true intent and purpose of the law.

It is deeply to be regretted that no State in the Union has violated the solemn compact on the subject of fugitive slaves more flagrantly than Pennsylvania. The Act passed the 8th of March, 1847, 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, Justices 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 free

States. The history of this Act is most remarkable. By a reference to the journals of the Senate and House of Representatives, it will be seen that it was passed sub silentio, without amendment or opposition, and without the ayes and nays being called in either House. (Jour. House Rep. page 207; Jour. of Senate, id. page 312.) Its provisions are most discreditable. It forbids the Judges of our Courts from taking cognizance of fugitive slaves; it attempts to impose a restriction upon the master, in using force to reclaim the slave; and the 8th section forbids the use of the jails and prisons of the Commonwealth, under the penalty of a fine of five hundred dollars, and disfranchisement of office during life.

The number of prisoners detained under the laws of the United States is small; it was not therefore thought necessary to erect a jail in each State. But Congress, by a resolution adopted the 23d of September, 1789, recommended to the Legislatures of the several States to pass laws, making it "the duty of the keepers of their jails to receive and safe keep all prisoners committed under the authority of the United States;" and also made provision to pay for the use of the jail, and support such prisoners as should be committed for offences. When the excitement relative to Slavery had increased in the free States, some of the Legislatures withdrew their permission to the United States to use the jails of the respec ive States, and Congress by an act of the 3d of March, 1824, authorised the Marshal's, under the direction of the District Judges, to hire a convenient place to serve as a temporary jail.

It is attempted to defend the passage of the Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Prigg's case, 16 Peters, 539; but the justification is utterly groundless. In this case the Supreme Court decided that a prior act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, passed the 25th March, 1826, was unconstitutional, because it obstructed the taking of fugitive slaves within the limits of the Commonwealth. The decision of the Court is sound law, and has never been doubted; but the Court in delivering their opinion, say, "State magistrates may, if they choose, exercise that authority, (the delivery of fugitive slaves) unless prohibited by State legislation.

This expression was seized upon and assumed as an authority to obstruct the reclaiming of fugitive slaves. Any Act of Assembly closing the jails and prisons of the Commonwealth against the Government of the United States, is neither more nor less than nullification. The nullification of South Carolina was undisguised, that of Pennsylvania covert, it lacks the manliness of open opposition, but it groans under the weight of a deep and abiding sense of hostility to the Constitution of the United States. The law is discreditable to the Statute Book of Pennsylvania, and fidelity to the Union demands its immediate and unqualified repeal.

It follows, from what I have said, that the slaveholding States have ground of complaint on the subject of fugitive slaves. The obligation to deliver them up to their masters is imperative, and we are bound to surrender the last fugitive slave, who is to be found within

2

our limits, by the same ties of honor and good faith that the United States are bound to pay the last dollar of the public debt.

Many well disposed persons at the North imagine that the fugitive slave law will be abused, and that under it free black men will be seized and taken away. There is no ground for this fear. Kidnapping in the North is too offensive to be permitted or connived at. Public sympathy will be enlisted on the side of the fugitive, not against him. But kidnapping is as odious in the South as it is at the north. Slaves are there considered as property; they look upon the man who attempts to hold a free man as a slave as we do upon a common thief: and those who imagine that in the South a free black man can with impunity be seized and kept as a slave, know nothing of public sentiment in the slaveholding States. The truth is that the evil is on the other side; and if injustice be done it will be to the master, not the slave. Any law, however, may be condemned, if the argument against it be drawn from its abusc. No penal law can ever be carried into execution if the fear that an innocent man may be charged with the commission of the offence, shall arrest it. Such an evil is incident to all laws, civil or penal, and will continue so while human tribunals are liable to err. I am authorized by a distinguished member of the Philadelphia bar to say, that during a most extensive practice of more than thirty years in protecting fugitive slaves, he has never known an instance of a colored man being delivered up as a fugitive slave contrary to the truth of the case. One such fact, properly attested, is more valuable than all the mawkish dissertations that we daily read on the subject of fugitive slaves.*

I am not afraid of public sentiment in New England. That noble people have made too many sacrifices for the preservation of the Union to hesitate for a moment to carry out the Constitution of the country. A people who have been described as possessing more knowledge and industry with less crime than any other part of the civilized world, will never falter in the performance of a duty essential to the preservation of our institutions. Look at the history of New England during the last forty years. The war of 1812 found her and left her a maratime people, engaged in commerce. She opposed the tariff for protection; she was outvoted, and submitted. She then invested her capital and labor in the manufactures of the country, and again Congress changed its system, and recalled its protection of domestic industry. She was in this again outvoted, and again submitted to the law of the land. There is no danger from such a people. They are generally right; they may be sometimes wrong, but they are always ultimately right.

It should be remembered that the South do not seek to force slavery upon us; they are willing to let us do as we please, and they ask that we should extend to them the same privilege. Let us therefore meet our Southern friends in candour and good faith. A concession by one part of the Union to the other is honorable to those who make it, and ought not to be misunderstood and treated as a dishonorable capitulation. Our high destiny has been attained by a spirit of compromise, and under its guidance we now exhibit to the