the horror, and the curse of universal man? . . . . In this hour, so full of interest, our mother country comes into our very midst, and, taking each by the hand, says to each, 'Son, give me, give me thine heart.' Can we not give it, freely, proudly give it all?" Referring to the dying exclamation of Lieutenant Hale, executed as a spy in the Revolution, -" 0, it is a bitter, bitter thing to die; and how bitter, too, to know that I have but one life to live which I can give to my country," he exclaimed: "Give us only this spirit for our work here," and it shall be "crowned with a long futurity of thankfulness and rejoicing." With such appeals sounding in their ears, it is not so very strange that the words "union," "patriotism," too often became the synonymes of hostility to human rights, and that the words "liberty" and "emancipation " fell into disrepute and became the objects of popular distrust and hate. Sharing, too, in the prejudice against the oppressed race, and becoming more and more aware how indissolubly slavery was linked with the very existence and fortunes of the republic, it is not as wonderful as it is distressful that such a man as Mr. Winthrop should make the sacrifice of consistency in voting for a bill giving to Texas tens of thousands of square miles, then free, to become slave territory, and millions of dollars for which, he admitted, she had no just claim. His apology, too, for such action, did much to discourage the wavering and embarrass those who aimed to be true to their convictions and faithful to the best interests of the country. "If I should vote for this measure," said Mr. Winthrop on that occasion, "I feel that it is one of the largest concessions I can make' to that spirit of conciliation and forbearance which I have ever been disposed to cherish in regard to these sectional subjects. It will be from the most earnest desire to remove every cause of contention from our midst, and to restore harmony and concord to our country and to its public councils. It will be from a devoted attachment to this Union, and from a willingness to sacrifice to its preservation everything, everything but principle." CHAPTER XXIV. COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850 (continued). - Fugitive slave laws a necessity of slavery. - Provision therefor in the Constitution. Law of 1793. - Fugitive Slave Act introduced by Mason. Amendments of Webster and Dayton. Of Pratt. Jefferson Davis. - John Davis. Underwood's substitute. Speech of Winthrop. Passage of bill in Senate. -Introduced into the House. — Previous question. — Passage. — Bill for abolition of slave-trade in District of Columbia in the Senate. Speeches of Hunter, Clay, Downs, Pratt. Amendment of Seward. Debate. Act passed. Introduced into the House. - Adopted. - Suggestion of Thaddeus Stevens. Slave Power victorious. - Friends of freedom not disheartened. — Speeches of Hale and Julian. - THE desire of slaves to escape from their condition of servitude was natural and inevitable. Provision must therefore be made to guard against its influence and to prevent such escapes. This provision could not, however, be made without mutual co-operation. It was simply impossible for the owner of a single slave to maintain a watch so constant and uninter-, mitted as to prevent his escape. Much less could it be done when one became the owner of scores or hundreds. Slavery, therefore, necessarily became a social matter, and men were obliged to join hand and hand in its guilt, or to relinquish it altogether. Accordingly, when the Constitution was formed, the slave-masters imperiously demanded and obtained an article recognizing that necessity and providing. for its relief. The iniquity of striking hands with the oppressor was then "framed into law," and at the very outset the government pledged itself to this ignoble and wicked service. The same motives, too, which required its enactment, were always present, not only to demand its enforcement, but to increase the stringency of its provisions. But such hard and cruel provisions were as much at war with the humane and Christian principles of Northern men as with the comfort, safety, and rights of their Southern victims. It was not strange, there fore, that the increasing numbers of these human chattels, who were reasserting their claims to themselves, were finding friends to help them on toward the north star and freedom, and that, from time to time, Congress was besieged with petitions and appeals to render this provision of the Constitution and the fugitive-slave law of 1793 more stringent and effective. But no additional legislation was actually secured until it was incorporated with the compromise measures of 1850. Early in January, 1850, Mr. Mason had introduced a bill to provide for the more effectual execution of the clause of the Constitution for the rendition of fugitives from service. This had been referred to the Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Butler had reported the bill, with some amendments. But it had been laid upon the table; nor was it called up again until the 19th of August. Mr. Mason then offered an amendment, in the shape of a substitute for the original bill, containing eight sections, which was afterward substantially adopted. In the explanations given, it appeared that the bill proposed by the committee of thirteen had been incorporated into the amendment proposed by Mr. Mason. It was remarked by Mr. Cass that in the committee the general wish was expressed to retain the main features of the act of 1793, which had been in force for sixty years, and of which the four leading provisions were, the right to arrest the fugitive where found, the right to take him before a magistrate when arrested, the duty of the magistrate to examine the case and commit him to the custody of the master, and the right of the master to remove him. He desired that this law should be continued, and that any additional features deemed necessary should be added as amendments. Mr. Webster had prepared a provision giving to the fugitive a jury trial. Mr. Dayton offered an amendment which, he said, was substantially the same that had been prepared by Mr. Webster. A sharp debate sprang up between Mr. Mason and Mr. Dayton on the necessities of the case, the relative merits of their respective amendments, and the difficulties interposed by the public sentiment to jury trials. Mr. Chase said he should vote for the amendment, though he presumed it would not satisfy the friends of the measure, as it seemed to be taken for granted that but one class of rights was to be regarded, "the rights of masters." He admitted that difficulties had arisen ; but he thought they had resulted from attempts to seize alleged fugitives without any process. To this Mr. Mason replied, "It is perfectly lawful to do so." Mr. Dayton's amendment was rejected by a vote of more than two to one. Mr. Chase offered an amendment, which Mr. Mason characterized as a plan to "substitute a trial by jury on the question of claim or no claim"; but it was rejected without a division. An amendment was then offered by Mr. Winthrop of Massachusetts, which Mr. Mason asserted involved "the admission of the testimony of the alleged fugitive"; and that, too, was rejected. The debate was renewed on the 20th, when Mr. Pratt of Maryland offered an amendment, the purport of which was, in the language of the mover, to "provide, if the United States do not pass a law sufficiently efficient to carry out the obligation, on the part of the Federal government, to deliver to the owner his slaves when they escape, that it shall pay the owners out of the coffers of the national treasury for the noncompliance with this obligation." This amendment was fitly characterized by Mr. Butler as "a proposition to make the government an underwriter, to repair the losses of the losers of slaves." In the course of the debate much was said of the difficulty of executing laws which are in conflict with the popular sentiment. Mr. Pratt denounced a sentiment which Mr. Seward had uttered not long before in Ohio. Referring to the laws which required the surrender of the fugitive slave at his fireside to his relentless pursuer, the Senator from New York had said: "Reform your own code, extend a cordial welcome to him who lays his weary limbs at your own door, and defend him as you would your household gods." Mr. Pratt thought little harmony could exist in the country where such counsels were given by men high in station. His amendment was, however, lost by a large majority. On the 23d, Mr. Underwood of Kentucky moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and to substitute a new bill which he had prepared. It was condemned by Mr. Mason, who characterized it as but little more stringent than the law of 1793; and it was rejected. Various amendments were offered, among which was one by Jefferson Davis, that was subsequently adopted, making the government responsible for the expenses of the slave's delivery. Another amendment was agreed to, on motion of Mr. Mason, imposing a fine of one thousand dollars upon a marshal who should neglect to use all proper means for the arrest of the fugitive, and making him responsible for his full value, if he should escape, with or without his assent. Mr. Davis of Massachusetts then offered an amendment to the effect that, in case colored seamen should be imprisoned in Southern ports, it should be the duty of the United States district-attorney to sue out writs of habeas corpus, and the duty of the United States judges to hear such cases. He then fully presented the facts and the treatment which Mr. Hoar, as the agent of Massachusetts, had received. He showed that this outrage was all the more aggravated by the fact that he had not been appointed until after two unavailing attempts had been made to secure the services of lawyers in Charleston to bring such cases before the United States courts. He commented on the conduct of the citizens of Charleston, and upon the action of the legislature of South Carolina in passing a law denying the writ of habeas corpus. "There," said Mr. Davis, "the question stands, from that day to this. The doors of the courts of justice stand closed, and apparently forever closed." Mr. Winthrop then made a brief but very cogent speech, reminding the Senate that the subject was not a new one; that William Wirt, as Attorney-General of the United States, had pronounced those laws unconstitutional; and that the time had not long elapsed since colored persons had been regarded not only as citizens, but as voters in several of the Southern States. The amendment was lost by a vote of thirteen to twenty-four, and the bill was passed, only twelve voting against it. The fact that only thirteen could be found to vote |