Page images
PDF
EPUB

"An

or causing to be seized any free person with | der a certain act of Congress passed on the intent to reduce him to slavery ; depositions 12th day of February, 1793.” During the not to be admitted as evidence; witnesses last session of her Legislature the Commistestifying falsely, liable to $5,000 fine and five sioners appointed to revise and amend the years imprisonment.

Penal Laws of Pennsylvania (John C. Knox,

Edward King, and David Webster) made a RHODE ISLAND.

report to the Legislature that they had comThis State by her legislation forbids the pleted their labors, and the result was precarrying away of any person by force out of sented in the shape of a bill entitled the State ; forbids any judge, justice, magis- act to consolidate, revise and amend the trate, or court from officially aiding in the Penal Laws of this Commonwealth.” That arrest of a fugitive slave under the fugitive report, on the thirty-first day of March, slave law of 1793 or 1850; forbids any sheriff 1860, was enacted into a law, and by the or other officer from arresting or detaining ninety-fifth section it is enacted as follows: and person claimed as a fugitive slave; pro- “No Judge of any of the Courts of this vides a penalty of $500, or imprisonment Commonwealth, nor any Alderman or Jusnot exceeding six months, for violating the tice of the Peace of said Commonwealth, act; denies the use of her jails to the United shall have jurisdiction or take cognizance of States for the detention of fugitive slaves. the case of any fugitive from labor from any

of the United States or Territories under any NEW YORK.

act of Congress, nor shall any such Judge, The State of New York has passed no Alderman, or Justice of the Peace of this laws having relation to the United States Commonwealth issue or grant any certificate fugitive slave act of 1850. Though pressed or warrant of removal of any such fugitive frequently upon the Legislature, they have from labor, under any act of Congress; and always failed of adoption. The old and ob- if any Alderman or Justice of the Peace of solete act of 1840, entitled “ An act to extend this Commonwealth shall take cognizance or the right of trial by jury," extends the trial jurisdiction of the case of any such fugitive, by jury to the cases of persons arrested as or shall grant or issue any certificate or fugitive slaves; but in the fourth edition of warrant of removal, as aforesaid, then, and the laws of the State, as prepared and pub- in either case, he shall be deemed guilty of lished by Hon. Hiram Denio, at present a misdemeanor in office, and shall, on conChief Justice of the Court of Appeals, may viction thereof, be sentenced to pay, at the be found appended to the chapter containing discretion of the Court, any sum not exthis law the following note:

ceeding one thousand dollars, the one-half to "An Act to Extend the Right of Trial by the party prosecuting for the same, and the Jury, passed May 6th, 1840.—The decision other half to the use of this Commonwealth." of the Supreme Court of the United States, The theory of this law, it will be seen, is in Prigg vs. the Commonwealth of Penn- founded strictly on the decision of the Susylvania, 16 Peters' R. 539, establishes the preme Court of the United States in the doctrine that all State laws calculated to Prigg case, and does not interfere with the interfere with the third subdivision of sec- functions of the Commissioner appointed tion 2, article 4, of the Constitution of the under the United States law. United States are unconstitutional. Since that decision the fugitive slave law (Laws of

MICHIGAN* Congress, 1850, chap. 60) has been passed, containing provisions repugnant to the

The law of this State requires State's whole of this act. It is therefore of no

attorneys to act as counsel for fugitive force; but, as it never has been repealed, it is tive slaves the benefits of the writ of habeas

slaves; secures to persons arrested as fugi. bere inserted.”

corpus, and trial by jury; denies use of NEW JERSEY.

State jails for detention of alleged fugitives; The State of New Jersey has no statutes requires that identity of fugitive slaves bearing on this subject såve those which shall be proved by two credible witnesses, or enjoin upon her State officers the duty of aid- by legal evidence equivalent thereto, and ing in the recovery of fugitive slaves. Per provides a fine of not less than five hundred sons temporarily residing in the State are

nor more than one thousand dollars, and also permitted to bring with them and re-for forcibly seizing, or causing to be seized,

imprisonment in State prison for five .years, tain their domestic slaves.

any free person, with intent to have such PENNSYLVANIA.

person held in slavery. The State of Pennsylvania has not for

IOWA. mally and specially legislated at all against the United States fugitive slave law of 1850, This State has no legislation on the subthough there was an old statute of 1847 | ject. which prohibited any judge, justice of the peace, or alderman from taking cognizance

* March, 1861. A bill to repeal this was indefinitely of the case of any fugitive from labor, “un- postponed in the House by a vote of 43 to 24

WISCONSIN.

Notes. The law of this State enjoins on the dis

In VERMONT Legislature, Nov., 1860, a trict attorneys the duty of acting as counsel majority of the Committee of House of for a.ieged fugitive slaves ; secures to such Representatives reported in favor of the repersons the benefits of the writ of habeas peal of the above law, but their proposition corpus; provides for appeal to be taken to was rejected by a vote of two to one. next stated term of the Circuit Court; se

In Maine, a repealing bill passed the Sencures trial by jury; enjoins a penalty of one ate-yeas 17, yeas 10, and failed in the thousand dollars and imprisonment of not

House. more than five nor less than one year on all

In MASSACHUSETTS, a modifying bill was who "falsely and maliciously represent any passed. For detail, see under “Massachusetts." free person to be a slave”; identity of alleged

In Rhode Island, a repealing bill passed fugitive slave to be proved by two credible the Senate—yeas 21, nays 9; the Housewitnesses; no deposition to be received in yeas 49, narys 18. evidence. It is also provided that

In Michigan, a repealing bill was inde fi. * No judgment recovered against any per- nitely postponed in the House-yeas 43, son or persons for any neglect or refusal to nays 24. obey, or any violations of, the act of Con

În PENNSYLVANIA, a repealing bill was ingress commonly termed the · Fugitive Slave troduced into the House, but was not reached, Act,' approved September eighteenth, one

in the course of business, when the firing on thousand eight hundred and fifty, or any of Sumter opened the war. A majority of the provisions thereof, shall be a lien on each House was understood to be in favor of any real estate within this State, nor shall it. This law was first passed in 1847, after any such judgment be enforcable by sale or the Prigg decision; and one section prohibitexecution of any real or personal property ing the use of State jails was repealed in 1852. within this State; but all such sales shall be

U. S. Senator Simmons of Rhode Island, absolutely void ; and in case of seizure or in one of his speeches, made these remarks: sale of any personal property, by virtue of

Complaint had been made of personal any execution issued on such judgment, the liberty bills. Now, the Massachusetts perdefendant in said execution may maintain sonal liberty bill was passed by a Democratic an action in replevin, or other action to House, a Democratic Senate, and signed by secure possession thereof, in the manner

a Democratic Governor, a man who was provided by law for such actions, on affidavit afterwards nominated by Mr. Polk for the filed as required by law, and a further state- very best office in New England, and was ment therein that said execution issued in a

unanimously confirmed by a Democratic judgment rendered under the provisions of United States Senate. Further than this, the act of Congress aforesaid ; and the pro- the very first time the attention of the Masvisions of this section shall also apply to sachusetts Legislature was called to the projudgments heretofore rendered."

priety of a repeal to this law was by a Re

publican Governor, Governor Banks. OHIO, INDIANA, ILLINOIS, MINNE on the other hand, South Carolina had reSOTA, CALIFORNIA AND OREGON.

pealed a law imprisoning British colored

sailors, but retained the one imprisoning We cannot find that these States have any those coming from States inhabited by her laws in force on the subject.

own brethren."

[ocr errors]

Now,

THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN RELATION

TO THE

THE SECESSION MOVEMENT,

Meeting and Proceedings of Congress. MINNESOTA-H. M. Rice, M. S. Wilkinson.

OREGON—Joseph Lane, Edward D. Baker. THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS-SECOND SESSION. Congress met on the first Monday of De

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. cember, 1860, and was composed of the fol- William PENNINGTON of New Jersey, lowing persons :

Speaker.
SENATE.

MAINE-D. E. Somes, John J. Perry, E. John C. BRECKINRIDGE of Kentucky, Vice B. French, F. H. Morse, Israel Washburn, President.

Jr.,I S. C. Foster.

NEW HAMPSHIRE-Gilman Marston, M. MAINE-H. Hamlin,* W. P. Fessenden.

W. Tappan, T. M. Edwards. NEW HAMPSHIRE-John P. Hale, Daniel

VERMONT-E. P. Walton, J. S. Morrill. Clark.

H. E. Royce. VERMONT-Solomon Foot, J. Collamer.

MASSACHUSETTS- $_Thos. D. Eliot, James MASSACHUSETTS—Henry Wilson, Charles

Buffinton, Charles Francis Adams, AlexanSumner. RHODE ISLAND—James F. Simmons, H. Alley, Daniel W. Gooch, Charles R. Train,

der H. Rice, Anson Burlingame, John B. B. Anthony.

Eli Thayer, Charles Delano, Henry L. CONNECTICUT-L. S. Foster, Jas. Dixon.

Dawes. NEW YORK-Wm.H.Seward, Preston King.

RHODE ISLAND–C. Robinson, W. D. BrayNEW JERSEY-J. C. Ten Eyck, J. R.

ton. Thomson.

CONNECTICUT Dwight Loomis, John PENNSYLVANIA-S. Cameron, Wm. Bigler. Woodruff, Alfred A.Burnham, Orris S. Ferry. DELAWARE-J. A. Bayard, W. Saulsbury.

DELAWARE- –W. G. Whiteley. MARYLAND-J. A. Pearce, A. Kennedy.

New York-Luther C. Carter, James Virginia—R. M. T. Hunter, James M. Humphrey, Daniel E. Sickles, W. B. MaMason. South CAROLINA—James Chesnut,f Jas. Briggs, Horace F. Clark, John B. Haskin,

clay, Thos. J. Barr, John Cochrane, George H. Hammond.† North Carolina—Thomas Bragg, T. L. L. Beale, Abm. B. Olin, John H. Reynolds,

Chas. H. Van Wyck, Wm. S. Kenyon, Chas. Clingman.

Jas. B. McKean, G. W. Palmer, Francis E. ALABAMA—B. Fitzpatrick, C. C. Clay, Jr. Spinner, Clark B. Cochrane, James H. GraMississIPPI-A. G. Brown, Jeff. Davis. LOUISIANA-J. P. Benjamin, John Slidell. R. H. Duell, M. Lmdley Lee, Chas. B. Hoard,

ham, Richard Franchot, Roscoe Conkling, TENNESSEE—A. O.P. Nicholson, A. John-Chas. B. Sedgwick, M. Butterfield, Emory

B. Pottle, Alfred Wells, Wm. Irvine, Alfred ARKANSAS—R. W. Johnson, W. K. Sebas- Ely, Augustus Frank, Edwin R. Reynolds, tian.

Elbridge G. Spaulding, Reuben E. Fenton. KENTUCKY-L. W. Powell, J. J. Critten

NEW JERSEY-John T. Nixon, John L. N. den.

Stratton, Garnett B. Adrain, Jetur R. Riggs, Missouri-Jas. S. Green, Trusten Polk.

Wm. Pennington (Speaker.) O110-B. F. Wade, Geo. E. Pugh.

PENNSYLVANIA— Thos. B. Florence, E.Joy INDIANA-J. D. Bright, G. N. Fitch.

Morris, John P. Verree, Wm. Millward, John ILLINOIS-S. A. Douglas, L. Trumbull.

Wood, John Hickman, Henry C. LongMichigan—Z. Chandler, K. S. Bingham.necker, Jacob K. McKenty, Thaddeus Florida-D. L. Yulee, S. R. Mallory. Georgia—Alfred Iverson, Robt. Toombs. bell, George W. Scranton, William H. Dim

Stevens, John W. Killinger, James H. CampTEXAS—John Hemphill, L. T. Wigfall.

mick, Galusha A. Grow, James T. Hale, BenWisconsin-Charles Durkee, J. R. Doolit- jamin F.Junkin, Edward McPherson, Samuel tle.

S. Blair, John Covode, William Montgomery, IOWA-J. W. Grimes, Jas. Harlan. CALIFORNIA–M. S. Latham, William M. William Stewart, Chapin Hall, Elijah Bab

James K. Moorhead, Robert Mcknight, Gwin.

bitt.

son.

* Resigned January 17th, 1861, and succeeded by Hon. Lot M. Morrill. Did not attend.

I Resigned and succeeded January 20, 1861, by Hon. Stephen Coburn.

MARYLAND–Jas. A. Stewart, J. M. Har- CALIFORNIA-Charles L. Scott, John C. ris, H. W. Davis, J, M. Kunkel, G. W. Burch. Hughes.

WISCONSIN-John F. Potter, C. C. WashVIRGINIA—John S. Millson, Muscoe R. H. burn, C. H. Larrabee. Garnett, Daniel C. De Jarnette, Roger A. MINNESOTA-Cyrus Aldrich, Wm. Windom. Prvor, Thomas S. Bocock, William Smith, OREGON—Lansing Stout. Alex. R. Boteler, John T. Harris, Albert G. Kansas-Martin F. Conway, (sworn Jan. Jenkins, Shelton F. Leake, Henry A. Ed- 30th, 1861). mundson, Elbert S. Martin, Sherrard Clemens.

Surth Carolina-John McQueen, Wm. President Buchanan's Last Annual Porcher Miles, Lawrence M. Keitt, Milledge

Message. 1.. Bonham, John D. Ashmore, Wm. W. It was delivered on Tuesday, December Boyce.

4th, 1860. NORTH CAROLINA-W.N. H. Smith, Thos. Mr. Buchanan alluded to the distracted Ruffin, W. Winslow, L. O'B. Branch, John condition of the country, and appealed to A. Gilmer, Jas. M. Leach, Burton Craige, the American people. He declared that the 2. B. Vance.

election of any one of our fellow-citizens to Georgia—Peter E. Love, M. J. Crawford, the office of President does not, of itself, Thos. Hardeman, Jr., L. J. Gartrell, J. W. H. afford just cause for dissolving the Union ; Underwood, James Jackson, Joshua Hill, and that, to justify a revolutionary resistJohn J. Jones.

ance the Federal Government must be guilty ALABAMA--Jas. L. Pugh, David Clopton, of “a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous Sydenh. Moore, Geo. S. Houston, W. R. W. exercise" of powers not granted by the Cobb, J. A. Stallworth, J. L. M. Curry. Constitution—which, he alleged, and pro

MISSISSIPPI-L. Q. C. Lamar, Reuben ceeded to prove, was not at all the Davis, William Barksdale, O. R. Singleton, case. He denied that “secession" could be John J. McRae.

justified as a Constitutional remedy, and LOUISIANA—John E. Bouligny, Miles Tay- asserted that the “principle is wholly inconlor, T. G. Davidson, John M. Landrum. sistent with the history, as well as the char

0110—G. H. Pendleton, John A. Gurley, acter, of the Federal Constitution ;” and C. L. Vallandigham, William Allen, James claimed that such a proposition was not ad. M. Ashley, Wm. Howard, Thomas Corwin, vanced until many years after the origin of Benj. Stanton, John Carey, C. A. Trimble, the Federal Government, and that then it Chas. D. Martin, Saml. S. Cox, John Sher- was met and refuted by the conclusive argu

H. G. Blake, William Helmick, C. B. ments of General Jackson. He held that Tompkins, T. C. Theaker, S. Edgerton, Ed- this Government is invested with all the ward Wade, John Hutchins, John A. Bing- attributes of sovereignty over the special ham.

subjects to which its authority extends, and KENTUCKY-Henry C. Burnett, Green then discussed, in the following language, Adams, S. O. Peyton, F. M. Bristow, W. C. what he denominated Anderson, Robert Mallory, Wm. E. Simms,

THE POWER TO COERCE A STATE. L. T. Moore, John Y. Brown, J. W.Steven

The question, fairly stated, is: Has the TERXESSEE—T. A. R. Nelson, Horace Constitution delegated to Congress the Maynard, R. B. Brabson, William B. Stokes, power to coerce a State into submission Robert Hatton, James H. Thomas, John V. which is attempting to withdraw or has acWright, James M. Quarles, Emerson Ether- tually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If idge, Wm. T. Avery.

answered in the affirmative, it must be on INDIANA-Wm. E. Niblack, Wm. H. Eng. the principle that the power has been conlish, Wm. M'Kee Dunn, Wm. S. Holman, ferred upon Congress to declare and to make David Kilgore, Albert G. Porter, John G. war against a State. After much serious Davis

, James Wilson, Schuyler Colfax, Chas. reflection I have arrived at the conclusion Case, John U. Pettit.

that no such power has been delegated to ILLINOIS—E. B. Washburne, J. F. Farns- Congress nor to any other department of the Forth, Owen Lovejoy, Wm. Kellogg, I. N. Federal Government. It is manifest, upon Murris, John A. McClernand, James C. an inspection of the Constitution, that this Robinson, P. B. Fouke, John A. Logan. is not among the specific and enumerated ARKANSAS—Thomas C. Hindman, Albert powers granted to Congress; and it is

equally apparent that its exercise is not Missouri–J. R. Barrett, T. L. Anderson,“ necessary and proper for carrying into John B. Clark, James Craig, S. H. Wood- execution” any one of these powers. So son, John S. Phelps, John W. Noell. far from this power having been delegated

MICHIGAN—William A. Howard, Henry to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Waldron, F. W. Kellogg, De W. C. Leach. Convention which framed the Constitution. FLORIDA—George S. Hawkins.

It appears, from the proceedings of that TEXA3—John H. Reagan, A.J. Hamilton. body, that on the 31st May, 1787, the clause Iowa-S. R. Curtis, Wm. Vandever. authorizing an exertion of the force of

man,

son.

Rust.

[ocr errors]

the whole against a delinquent State” came Virginia Legislature against the “a!ic, and up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed sedition acts," as “ palpable and alarming init in a brief but powerful speech, from which fractions of the Constitution.” In pointing I shall extract but a single sentence. He out the peaceful and constitutional remedies, observed: “The use of force against a State and he referred to none other to which the would look more like a declaration of war States were authorized to resort on such than an infliction of punishment, and would occasions, he concludes by saying, “that the probably be considered by the party attacked Legislatures of the States might have made as a dissolution of all previous compacts by a direct representation to Congress with a which it might be bound.” Upon his mo- view to obtain a rescinding of the two offend tion the clause was unanimously postponed, ing acts, or they might have represented to and was never, I believe, again presented. their respective Senators in Congress their Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787, wish that two-thirds thereof would propose when incidentally adverting to the subject, an explanatory amendment to the Constitu he said: “Any Government for the United tion, or two-thirds of themselves, if such had States, formed on the supposed practicability been their option, might, by an application of using force against the unconstitutional to Congress, have obtained a Convention proceedings of the States, would prove as for the same object.” visionary and fallacious as the government This is the very course which I earnestly of Congress,” evidently meaning the then recommend in order to obtain an “explana. existing Congress of the old Confedera- tory amendment” of the Constitution on the tion.

subject of slavery. This might originate with Without descending to particulars, it may Congress or the State Legislatures, as may be be safely asserted that the power to make deemed most advisable to attain the object. war against a State is at variance with the The explanatory amendinent might be whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. confined to the final settlement of the true Suppose such a war should result in the construction of the Constitution on three conquest of a State, how are we to govern it special points: afterwards ? Shall we hold it as a province 1. An express recognition of the right of and govern it by despotic power ?' In the property in slaves in the States where it now nature of things we could not, by physical exists or may hereafter exist. force, control the will of the people, and 2. The duty of protecting this right in all compel them to elect Senators and Repre- the common Territories throughout their sentatives to Congress, and to perform all territorial existence, and until they shall be the other duties depending upon their own admitted as States into the Union, with or volition, and required from the free citizens without slavery, as their constitutions may of a free State as a constituent member of prescribe. the Confederacy.

3. A like recognition of the right of the But, if we possessed this power, would it master to have his slave, who has escaped be wise to exercise it under existing circum- from one State to another, restored and destances ? The object would doubtless be to livered up” to him, and of the validity of the preserve the Union. War would not only fugitive-slave law enacted for this purpose, present the most effectual means of destroy together with a declaration that all State ing it, but would banish all hope of its laws impairing or defeating this right are peaceable reconstruction. Besides

, in the violations of the Constitution, and are confraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and sequently null and void. treasure would be expended, rendering future It inay be objected that this construction reconciliation between the States impossible. of the Constitution has already been settled In the meantime who can foretell what by the Supreme Court of the United States, would be the sufferings and privations of the and what more ought to be required? The people during its existence ?

answer is, that a very large proportion of the The fact is, that our Union rests upon people of the United States still contest the public opinion, and can never be cemented correctness of this decision, and never will hy the blood of its citizens shed in civil cease from agitation and admit its binding

If it cannot live in the affections of force until established by the people of the the people, it must one day perish. Con- several States in their sovereign character. gress possesses many means of preserving Such an explanatory amendment would, it is it by conciliation; but the sword was not believed, forever terminate the existing displaced in their hand to preserve it by force. sensions and restore peace and harmony

In this connexion, I shall merely call at- among the States. tention to a few sentences in Mr. Madison's It ought not to be doubted that such an justly celebrated report, in 1799, to the appeal to the arbitrament established by the Legislature of Virginia. In this he ably and Constitution itself would be received with conclusively defended the resolutions of the favor by all the States of the Confederacy. preceding Legislature against the strictures In any event, it ought to be tried in a spirit of several other State Legislatures. These of conciliation before any of these States were mainly founded upon the protest of the shall separate themselves from the Union.

.

war.

« PreviousContinue »