state in the Union into which they might escape from the state where they were held in servitude." These are the very words of Mr. Justice Story, of Massachusetts, in delivering the opinion of that great national tribunal. He went on to add-" The full recognition of this right and title was indispensable to the security of this species of property in all the slaveholding states; and, indeed, was so vital to the preservation of the domestic interests and institutions, that it cannot be doubted that it constituted a fundamental article, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed." Again-“ We have said that the clause contains a positive and unqualified recognition of the right of the owner in the slave." Chief Justice Taney, of the Supreme Court, held, that "by the national compact, this right of property is recognised as an existing right in every slave state of the Union." Judge

such record, authenticated by the attestation of the clerk, and of the seal of the said court, being produced in any other state, territory, or district in which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited to any judge, commissioner, or other officer authorised by the law of the United States to cause persons escaping from service or labour to be delivered up, shall be held and taken to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labour of the person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the said party of other and further evidence, if necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in the said record, of the identification of the person escaping, he or she shall be delivered up to the claimant. And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other persons authorised by this act to grant certificates to claimants of fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of his right to take any such person identified and proved to be owing service or labour as aforesaid, which certificate shall authorise such claimant to seize or arrest, and transport such person to the state or territory from which he escaped: provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as requiring the production of a transcript of such record or evidence as aforesaid; but in its absence, the claim shall be heard and determined upon other satisfactory proof competent in law.

Thompson said, the constitution "affirms, in the most unequivocal manner, the right of the master to the service of his slave, according to the laws of the state under which he is so held." Judge Wayne, of Pennsylvania, in the Supreme Court of the United States, affirmed, that all the judges concurred "in the declaration, that the provision in the constitution was a compromise between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding states, to secure to the former fugitive slaves as property." Judge Daniel, of the same bench, held, that "the paramount authority of this clause in the constitution is to guarantee to the owner the right of property in his slave; and the absolute nullity of any state power, directly or indirectly, openly or covertly, aimed to impair that right, or to obstruct its enjoyment, I admit, nay insist upon, to the fullest extent."

CHAPTER XVIII.

Personal Liberty Bills of the Northern States-Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin; Vattel on the Interpretation of Treaties.

ANTI-FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS.

In the preceding chapter we have given a history of the fugitive slave measures adopted by the government of the United States. The particular law, alleged to be the most offensive to the people of the northern states at the present time, is the one adopted as a compromise measure in 1850. Their indignation against the provisions of that act is beyond all description. To defeat the execution of that compromise, several of the non-slaveholding states have enacted what are termed "personal liberty laws." The necessity for a more stringent fugitive slave law than the one enacted in 1793, was generally admitted; and hence the origin of the act of 1850, then called a compromise measure. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and some other states, had passed treasonable statutes, nullifying the acts of Congress of 1793, and in direct violation of the constitution pertaining to fugitives from service. These "personal liberty laws" (which we insert in this chapter), nullify, not only the law of 1850, but also that of 1793, which was enacted by the fathers of the republic, at the suggestion of Washington. If the

reader will examine the constitutional fugitive slave clause (clause 3, sect. 2, art. iv.), and the laws of 1793 and of 1850, passed in conformity therewith; and then compare those decrees with the following revolutionary and nullifying laws, which have been passed with the most singular unanimity in the northern states, he can judge of the integrity of some of our state legislators. We are pained to record such flagrancies. Every member of the legislatures that passed these anti-fugitive laws was sworn to support the constitution and the laws of Congress. The civilised world can judge of the integrity of the acts. The following is a digest of the state enactments.

By the laws of the state of Maine, it is provided, that if a fugitive slave shall be arrested, he shall be defended by the attorney of the commonwealth, and all expense of such defence paid out of the public treasury. All state and county jails, and all buildings belonging to the state, are forbidden the reception or securing of fugitive slaves; and all officers are forbidden, under heavy penalties, from arresting or aiding in the arrest of fugitive slaves. If a slaveholder or other person shall unlawfully seize or confine a fugitive slave, he shall be liable to be imprisoned for not more than five years, or fined not exceeding 1,000 dollars. If a slaveholder take a slave into the state, the slave is thereby made free; and if the master undertake to exercise any control over him, he is subjected to imprisonment for not less than one year, or fined not exceeding 1,000 dollars.

We have not had access to the laws of New Hampshire; but a general index, which has been consulted, shows that a law exists by which all slaves entering the state, either with or without the consent of their masters, are declared free, and any attempt to capture or hold them is declared to be a felony.

In the state of Vermont, the law forbids all citizens and officers of the state from executing or assisting to execute the Fugitive Slave Act of the Congress of the United States, or to arrest a fugitive slave, under penalty of imprisonment for one year, or a fine not exceeding 1,000 dollars. It also forbids the use of all public jails

Y

and buildings for the purpose of securing such slaves. The attorneys for the state are directed, at the public expense, to defend and procure to be discharged every person arrested as a fugitive slave. The Habeas Corpus Act also provides that fugitive slaves shall be tried by jury, and interposes other obstacles to the execution of the Fugitive Slave Act.

The law further provides, that all persons unlawfully capturing, seizing, or confining a person as a fugitive slave, shall be confined in the state-prison not more than ten years, and fined not exceeding 1,000 dollars. Every person held as a slave, who shall be brought into this state, is declared free; and all persons who shall hold, or attempt to hold, as a slave, any person so brought into the state, in any form, or for any time, however short, shall be confined in the state prison not less than one, nor more than fifteen years, and fined not exceeding 2,000 dollars.

The laws of the state of Massachusetts forbid, under heavy penalties, her citizens, and state and county officers, from executing the Fugitive Slave Act, or from arresting a fugitive slave, or from aiding in either-denying the use of the jails and public buildings for such purposes.

The governor is required to appoint commissioners in every county to aid fugitive slaves in recovering their freedom when proceeded against as fugitive slaves, and all costs attending such proceedings are directed to be paid by the state.

Any person who shall remove, or attempt to remove, or come into the state with the intention to remove, or assist in removing, any person who is not a fugitive slave, within the meaning of the constitution, is liable to punishment by a fine not less than 1,000, nor more than 5,000 dollars, and imprisonment not less than one nor more than five years.

The Habeas Corpus Act gives trial by jury to fugitive slaves, and interposes other impediments to the hunting of them.

By legislative resolve of 1855, it was declared—

"Inasmuch as there is neither any power granted to the general government of the United States for the enactment of any law by Congress for the return of alleged fugitive slaves, nor any prohibition therein to the states against the passage of laws upon that subject, that the Fugitive Slave Act is a direct violation of the 10th article of the amendments of the constitution of the United