cate all cases of this nature, and to issue a mandate of restoration. This bill moreover declares, that every person obstructing or hindering the claimant in his rescue, or assisting the fugitive (knowing him to be such) to escape, shall forfeit $1,000, be imprisoned one year, and be subject to a private action besides, on the part of the master, for damages sustained.

This bill, which at the North has been familiarly named a Bill of Abominations, if it is not quite worthy of so reproachful a name, contains several things which, as I must believe, would lead to abominations. The apprehension that Mr. Webster had pledged himself to support this, in his speech before the Senate, has been, perhaps more than everything else, the occasion of the unparalleled excitement that now exists. As his speech was first published, there was apparently no alternative but to believe such an apprehension to be well grounded. For myself, I always supposed, from the first, that there must be some mistake, which had been overlooked; for I felt well assured in my own mind, that Mr. Webster would never go the lengths of that bill. It is now fully apparent, that I had good grounds for my suspicion. From one of our most respectable papers, I have taken the following correction, premising that it comes from the hand of a man who might claim a near place to Mr. Webster in respect to talent, integrity, and patriotism. The correction runs thus:

"The truth is, that no person who heard the speech, and no candid man who has read it, ever supposed Mr. Webster to have pledged himself to the particular and specific amendments suggested by Mr. Mason. A change of location of one single word, which probably stands as it now does, by the reporter's misapprehension or mistake, removes all the ground for the elaborate and fulminating censure of the Atlas. The speech now reads thus:- My friend at the head of the Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject, now before the Senate, with some amendments to it, which I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.' Change the position of the word which, and the sentence would read thus:-'My friend at the head of the Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject, now before the Senate, which, with some amendments to it, I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.' It has been again and again repeated, but is entirely false, that Mr. Webster named Mason's amendments as those which he intended to support.

"We are authorized to state two things; first- That Mr. Webster did not revise this portion of his speech, with any view to examine its exact accuracy of phrase; and, second- That Mr. Webster, at the time of the delivery of the speech, had in his desk three emendatory sections, prepared under consultation with

a high judicial authority, who has had more to do with these questions than any judge in the country, and one of which sections provides expressly for the right of trial by jury. These sections had already been suggested to members of the Senate most interested in the question, with an intimation that it was intended to propose them, when the bill should regularly come up for consideration.

"The writer of this article heard every word of the speech, and understood it to be exactly what it would be with the change of the word as before mentioned."

I merely add, that Mr. Webster himself has personally assured me, that his speech was in accordance with the correction here made, and that he has now in his desk the amendments to which the corrector refers. Thus much in respect to this matter, which has given so great offence-an offence however which, as the matter stood at first before the public, was not without some apparent ground. The worst of the case is, that now, since this mistake has been corrected, the high-toned Free-Soil and Abolition papers still continue to ignore the correction. Is this justice? Is this candor?

As to the bill itself, it plainly contains some preposterous provisions. Any postmaster or collector whatever, whether resident in the State, or merely being in it, (such is its language), may take cognizance of a fugitive's case, and give orders for his remittance. All this, too, without any trial whatever, or any other proof than oral testimony, or an affidavit made before any one who can administer an oath. What hinders the master, then, coming from Virginia or any other slave State, from bringing a Southern postmaster with him; and, when they have come to Massachusetts, it may surely be said of such postmaster, that he is (being) in the State, where the fugitive is. What hinders a slave-catcher from the South from coming to Massachusetts with his confederate postmaster, and laying hold of any free colored man here, so as to bring him to trial before the said postmaster, or before one of our own bribed postmasters, and then to take the man off to a slave-market? Do you say: There must be proof of bondage?' Very well; but is not the manufacture of the proof required, completely within the power of that slave-catcher? A man who can engage in such a business, is capable of forging any proof that he needs.

What now shall we say to all this? Is the great question of man's natural right—that inalienable right, as our Declaration of Independence calls it is such a question as that to be put in the power of every and any postmaster? God forbid, that such trifling

as this with a question of such moment to a fellow being, should ever be allowed, or thought of! No! NEVER, NEVER! No, Mr. Mason. We of the New England States believe that negroes are men; we believe that "GOD HAS MADE OF ONE BLOOD all the nations that dwell upon the earth.” And if they are men, the question of freedom cannot be so lightly dealt with as your bill proposes. The next that we should hear of would be, that some Bruin is on our soil, with a postmaster confederate, and hurrying off our freemen to the land of slavery. This will not do. We cannot incur the danger of such a thing.

'Sir, I

And then the penalty for interposing in the execution of such a summary process — it looks very much like the expression of passionate severity. It is immeasurably beyond the demerit of the alleged crime; although, I must confess, that the law of Massachusetts of 1843 stands pretty well by the side of it in this respect, and has even less ground of excuse; for the United States Court have decided, that State-officers may adjudge such cases of fugitives, and Massachusetts has said they shall not. At all events, however, any such law as Mr. Mason's, is a perfect felo de se. It would operate just as the bloody code did in England, when there were some 220 or 230 crimes punishable with death. No jury could at last be found to convict. Even murderers escaped, through the horror which the juries had of legal cruelty. So would it be here. Could I see Mr. Mason, I should feel disposed to say to him: regard you as an honorable and a talented man ; but you must pardon me for saying, that you do not know the North; above all, you do not know New England. Why Sir, it would be as perfect a piece of Quixotism as was ever exhibited, to bring the offenders which you describe, before (for example) a Massachusetts jury. A juryman who, for such an alleged crime as you describe, should vote to inflict the penalty you propose, would lose caste as a New Englander for ever. Your bill is, therefore, a bill of impossibilities. It utterly overlooks the state of things and of society at the North. We are born here with an instinctive aversion to slavery; we believe that it is not doing to others, what we would that others should do to us. And to fine a man in the enormous sum of $1,000, to imprison him moreover for a year, and then subject him to a civil action besides, for injury done to the master and to do all this merely because of an interference which humanity pleads for, although the law con

demns it, is Turkish justice, not American at any rate not New England justice. Such a bill is as much out of question here, as a bill of Prudhomme's making would be, which defines property as meaning crime.'

I do not, be it noted, justify interference. It is against our United States Court, and the law of international justice. And as to all the efforts to lead men to trample that Court under foot, I have given my honest opinion at full length above. But the remedy against such a breach of solemn compact, must be sought in a more just and feasible way than that which Mr. Mason proposes.

The Committee of Compromise, in the Senate, have given to the country a much more acceptable proposal than Mr. Mason's. I insert their own words here, so that all may read and interpret for themselves.

"The owner of a fugitive from service or labor is, when practicable, to carry with him to the State in which the person is found, a record, from a competent tribunal, adjudicating the facts of elopement and slavery, with a general description of the fugitive. This record, properly attested and certified under the official seal of the court, being taken to the State where the person owing service or labor is found, is to be held competent and sufficient evidence of the facts which had been adjudicated, and will leave nothing more to be done than to identify the fugitive.

"The committee conceive that a trial by jury in a State where a fugitive from service or labor is recaptured, would be a virtual denial of justice to the claimant of such fugitive, and would be tantamount to a positive refusal to execute the provisions of the Constitution; the same objections do not apply to such a trial in the State from which he fled. In the slave-holding States, full justice is administered, with entire fairness and impartiality, in cases of all actions for freedom. The person claiming his freedom is allowed to sue in forma pauperis; counsel is assigned him; time is allowed him to collect his witnesses, and to attend the sessions of the court; and his claimant is placed under bond and security, or is divested of the possession during the progress of the trial, to insure the enjoyment of these privileges; and if there be any leaning on the part of courts and juries, it is always on the side of the claimant for freedom.

"In deference to the feelings and prejudices which prevail in the non-slaveholding States, the committee propose such a trial in the State from which the fugitive fled, in all cases where he declares to the officer giving the certificate for his return, that he has a right to his freedom. Accordingly, the committee have prepared, and report herewith two sections, which they recommend should be incorporated in the fugitive bill pending in the Senate. According to these sections, the claimant is placed under bond, and required to return the fugitive to that county in the State from which he fled, and there to take him before a competent tribunal, and allow him to assert and establish his freedom if he can, affording to him for that purpose all needful facilities."

I do not well see, what more can be done, at present. Here is no trifling with postmaster jurisdiction. If this measure is carried, and faithfully obeyed, I do not perceive what more we can demand or expect at the North, so long as the Article in the Constitution remains, respecting the restoration of fugitives. This looks like sobriety, and political justice, to say the least. For one, I should be satisfied to leave the matter in this position, and give it a fair trial. I do not know what Mr. Webster's proposed amendments were; but I should suppose he might be satisfied with the present proposed Committee Bill.

To the position of our honored Legislature, in their recent Resolves, viz. that the case of the fugitive shall be tried "by jury in the State where the claim is made," I am unable, highly as I respect their motives, to yield my assent. How is it in all other like cases? If a fugitive from justice in Massachusetts goes to New Jersey, and he is there demanded by our Governor, must he have a jury-trial there of New Jersey men, before they can agree to give him up? Not at all. What right have they to try the case of a Massachusetts criminal? None, by any law or usage whatever. And are not fugitive slaves from the South, criminals in the eyes of Southern law? Most plainly they are. And have not the Southern States a right to determine for themselves, what and whom they may regard as criminal? Plainly they have. And when a fugitive slave comes here, who has done what their laws regard as criminal, have they not the right to have him remanded, and tried by a jury or court of their own States respectively? I must confess this seems a very plain case to me; so plain, that I cannot in any way accord with the resolve of our honorable Legislature. I cannot think that it is based on the common principles of public law, and certainly not on those of Jus Gentium. Besides, what the Committee have stated in their Report above, is no doubt accordant with what would be matter of fact, in case such trials were allowed.

I have done with this subject. The brief result, as it strikes my own mind, is, that the CONSTITUTION in respect to fugitives held to service or labor MUST BE OBEYED. It is useless to talk about conscience as setting it aside. It is an imputation on the men who framed our government. It is holding them up to the world as having neither conscience nor humanity. Under the regulations proposed by the Compromise Committee, I can at present, see no