33D CONG....2D SESS. against the bill. I believe the bill is intended to enforce an unconstitutional and arbitrary law, and for no other purpose whatever, and to prevent, if possible, the influences now at work in the free States for the protection of the liberties of their own citizens. Execution of United States Laws-Debate. conform to all the requirements of the Constitu- Mr. WILSON. The Senator from Florida Mr. WELLER. The Senator, I believe, did say, in the course of his remarks, that he regarded the fugitive slave law as an unconstitutional and oppressive act. Entertaining that opinion, of course he will not vote for this bill, which seeks the enforcement of it. That Senator undertook to say, that if Congress repealed the fugitive slave law, he had no doubt the Legislature of Massachusetts would pass a law which would enable the slaveholder to recapture his property. Now, I ask whether there is a Senator within the sound of my voice who believes that if you were to repeal the fugitive slave law to-morrow, the Legislature of a single one of the New England States would pass any enactment which would enable him to recapture his property; who does not know that if this subject were pretermitted to the State Legislatures, it would operate as a total denial of the right of slaveholders to go within some States and recapture their property? Does he suppose this Union can be maintained when you proscribe a certain section of the Union, and deprive these people of the right to recapture their property? I do not intend to go into this discussion, certainly not at this early hour of the evening; but if the debate shall be prolonged until daylight, I may take occasion to express my opinions generally. It is enough for me to say that the Senator from Massachusetts has been most grossly misrepresented in the newspapers, and in my judgment, he does not express the views of his colleague, [Mr. SUMNER,] as expounded heretofore. There is certainly a difference of opinion between them. It may be that the Senator from Massachusetts who has just addressed the Senate is a Free-Soiler, as contradistinguished from an Abolitionist. He has said that there are only about one thousand Abolitionists in Massachusetts. Why, Mr. President, I had considered that that was the most popular party in the State, and that the Senator from Massachusetts who has not spoken [Mr. SUMNER] was the exponent of the people of that State. But, sir, it seems I was mistaken. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] is going to stand by the Union; if so he will find me along side of him. I have no disposition to trespass on the rights of his State, and if he will only stand by me to prevent his people trespassing on the constitutional rights of other sections of the Confederacy, we shall preserve the Union intact; but when he speaks of the sentiments generally enter-engaging in the debate, until near the end of the tained in the free States, I suppose, like others, he does not undertake to speak for the State which I represent. We have no abolitionists there; but if we have any at all they are colored men. [Laughter.] Mr. WILSON. The Senator from California has asked me a question, and I have answered him frankly. Now, I should like to ask him one. Mr. WELLER. Certainly; that is fair. Mr. WILSON. The Senator says he will stand by me in support of the Constitution. I wish to ask that Senator if he believes it would be en croaching, trespassing on, or interfering with the rights of the slave States of this Union, if Congress were to abolish slavery in this District, or allow the people of the District of Columbia to abolish it? Mr. WELLER. I should so consider it; but as I perceive that the Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD] is very anxious to speak, I shall not explain the reasons why I give this answer. Mr. MALLORY. Mr. President, I am in favor of the bill, and I shall not delay the Senate a moment, believing, as I do, that the policy of its friends should be to pass it without saying anything on their part; but, sir, I have a question to put to the Senator from Massachusetts. I think he desires to be distinctly understood. His manner has all the appearance of frankness, and I doubt it not; but I think he has been misunderstood. In reply to the interrogatory of the Senator from Texas, [Mr. Rusk,] in relation to the rendition of fugitive slaves, I understood the Senator from Massachusetts to say, that Massachusetts would SENATE. the United States will erect no monument to the memory of Jefferson, who declared, that, in the unequal contest between slavery and freedom, the Almighty had no attribute which could take part with the oppressor. But the Senate will, on the other hand, promptly comply with the demand to raise another bulwark around the institution of slavery. Mr. President, as there is nothing new in the circumstances of this transaction, so it has happened now, as on all similar occasions heretofore, that everything foreign from the question at issue has been brought into the debate. The introduction of these foreign matters has, as heretofore, been attended with a profusion of reproaches, and calumnies, and epithets, as inapposite to the occa sion as they are inconsistent with the decorum and dignity of an august Legislature. Those of us upon whom such denunciations, calumnies, and epithets have been showered, have endured them long, and I think no one will deny that we have endured them patiently. To such Senators as have given utterance to their opinions in that form of argument, I make, for myself, only this replythat that field of debate is relinquished exclusively to themselves. Now, as on similar occasions heretofore, the relations of political parties, and their respective merits and demerits, have entered largely into the discussion. Sir, I shall forbear from entering into that part of the debate, for the reason that I am addressing, not politicians, but statesmen. So far as the justice or expediency of the measure under consideration is concerned, it can make no difference whether those who advocate it or those who oppose it are Whigs or are Democrats, or belong to that new class of men who are popularly called Know-Nothings. Arguments based on such grounds may have their weight somewhere else outside of this Chamber or possibly up there-[pointing to the galleries]but certainly not down here. Inquisition has been made concerning the circumstances and influences which attended the recent elections of members, not only of this House, but of the House of Representatives, for the purpose, as it seems, of awakening prejudices against those who oppose the passage of this bill. I give notice to honorable Senators who have adopted this line of argument, that it is neither required by the people whom I represent here, nor is it consistent with their dignity and honor, that I should assume to Mr. SEWARD. Mr. President, the scene before me, and all its circumstances and incidents, admonish me that the time has come when the Senate of the United States is about to grant another of those concessions which have become habitual here to the power of slavery in this Republic. For the second time, in a period of nearly three months, the brilliant chandelier above our heads is lighted up; the passages and galleries are densely crowded; all the customary forms of legislation are laid aside; the multifarious subjects, which have their rise in all parts of this extended country, are suddenly forgotten, in a concentration of feeling upon a single question of intense interest. The day is spent without adjournment. Senators, foregoing their natural relaxation and refreshment, remain in their seats until midnight approaches. Excitement breaks out in every part of the Chamber. Criminations and recriminations, and denunciations of Senators individually, and of Senators by classes, equally of those who have participated in the debate, and of those who have remained silent, grate harshly upon the ear. Such as these were the incidents that heralded the passage of the fugitive slave act of 1850. Such as these attended the abrogation of the Missouri compromise in 1854. I know full well that the fall of constitutional liberty is as certain to follow these incidents occurring now, as it followed the like incidents on the sad occasions to which I have referred. And, for aught I know, the teeming gun which pro-interpret the motives which determined their choice claimed those former triumphs of slavery, is already planted again under the eaves of the Capitol, to celebrate another victory. My course, on this occasion, has been the same as on all former occasions of a like character. I have forborne from controversy, that the country may know who it is of legislators. The results are before the world. They explain themselves. Equally derogatory from my duty, and disrespectful to the statesmen around me, and to the States which they represent, would it be, were I to inquire into the manner or circumstances of the elections made by those States. I recognize every Senator here as the exponent of the opinions and principles of the State from which he comes. And I hear no voice from any State but that to which its representatives give utterance. Nevertheless, Mr. President, I shall not shrink from such an exposition of my own opinions and sentiments on collateral issues, as shall tend to disembarrass a good cause, by relieving it from unjust prejudices, directed against myself as its advocate." First, in regard to what is called the Nebraska question. I freely confess that I regard the abro For myself, there is a painful association connected with the rise of this debate. I arose in my place at eleven o'clock this morning, simultaneously with the honorable Senator from Connec-gation of the Missouri compromise by the Neticut, [Mr. TOUCEY,] and each of us demanded an audience, which was assigned by the Chair to him. He announced this bill, which, however obscure in its language, was, as we all instantly knew, designed for the protection of officers of the United States, who are engaged in executing the fugitive slave law. On the other side, I held in my hand a proposition to be submitted to the Senate, for the erection of a bronze monument, fifty feet high, in the city of Washington, which should illustrate the life and the death of Thomas Jefferson, and commemorate the immortal names of the signers of the Declaration of American Independence. It was a new acknowledgment which I was about to ask from the Senate of the United States to the great fact on which the liberties of this country, and all its constitutions rest-that all men are created equal. Sir, the success which the honorable Senator from Connecticut [Mr. TOUCEY] obtained over me, when the floor was assigned to him, was ominous. The Senate of braska bill of the last session as an unjust, unnecessary, dangerous, and revolutionary act. I voted against it as such. Let that vote stand against me, in the minds and in the hearts, if it must be so, of those Senators who regard it as a cause for reproach. Certainly, this is not the time to justify that vote. A time to do so was when the vote was given, and its vindication was then duly made. There is probably another time coming for the renewal of that vindication, a time in the near future, when the question of a restoration of freedom throughout the Territories of the United States will arise in the Senate. Then, if God shall bless me withcontinued life, and health, and strength, I hope again to do my duty. To that future time I adjourn the argument on the bill for the abrogation of the Missouri compromise. There is more of propriety in the discussions of the fugitive slave law, which have been reopened during this debate. I have no need, however, to speak on that subject. I have fully debated it 33D CONG....2D SESS. heretofore, on more occasions than one, in this place. Every word of what I then said is recorded in the legislative history of the United States. There is not a thought that I would wish to add; there is not a word that I am willing to take away. Time is full surely and quite rapidly enough resolving the question whether those were right who pronounced the fugitive slave law a just, and necessary, and constitutional act, full of healing to a wounded country, or whether the humble individual who now stands before you was right when he admonished you that that law was unnecessary, unwise, inhuman, and derogatory from the Constitution, and that it would never be executed without new and continued usurpations. The transaction of this night takes place in order that the words of that prophecy may be fulfilled. Execution of United States Laws-Debate. fall into error and temptation. But my life has More than that, sir. Speaking from a full Sir, my honorable friend from Connecticut [Mr. I am not allowed, sir, to reach the merits of this question without alluding to a body of men who sport in the public gaze under a name which I hardly know how to repeat in the presence of so grave and reverend an assemblage as this-the Know-Nothings. They are said to have contrived their disguise with so much ingenuity, that one who is not a novitiate cannot deny a knowledge of their ceremonies and principles without implying his communion and membership with them. Nevertheless, I must reply to the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] who charges me, among others, with such an affiliation, that I have no knowledge of that body of men, other than what is afforded me by the publications of the day. Thus informed, I understand the KnowNothings to be a secret society or order, consisting of two or three grades, colleagued and mutually sworn to elect individuals of their own order, or at least persons maintaining the principles which that order entertains, to all offices of trust and profit in the United States. Those principles I understand to be, in general, the same which, before the organization of the Know-Nothings, passed under the name of Native Americanism. 1, sir, have no connection with that order. I am under no responsibility for its doings, and I have not the least sympathy with its principles or sentiments. I belong to one voluntary association of men, which has to do with spiritual affairs. It is the Christian church-that branch of it, all imperfect though I think it is, which, according to my notions, most nearly retains, in their purity, the instructions of the Gospel. That association is an open one, which performs all its rites and gives all its instructions with publicity, and invites every man, in the language of its Divine founder, to come in and partake of the privileges with which he invested it, and of the blessings which he promises.. I belong to one temporal society of men, and that is the political party which, according to my notions, embodies most fully and most truly, although, I confess, as in the other case, very inadequately, the principlesgress of the United States, the emancipation of all of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States. This association also, of which I have last spoken, is an open one. All its transactions are conducted in the broad daylight; and it invites all citizens, and all men who become subjects of the power of this Government, of whatever clime or race or color they may be, to enter into its ranks, to participate in its labors, and to cooperate in maintaining good government, and in advancing the cause of human nature. These two associations, the one spiritual and the other temporal, are the only voluntary associations to which I now belong, or ever have belonged since I became a man; and, unless I am bereft of reason, they are the only associations of men to which I shall ever suffer myself to belong. Secret societies, sir! Before I would place my right hand between the hands of other men, in a secret lodge, order, class, or council, and bending my knee before them, enter into combination with them for any object, personal or political, good or bad, I would pray to God that that hand and that knee might be paralyzed, and that I might become an object of the pity and even of the mockery of my fellow men. Swear, sir! I, a man, an American citizen, a Christian, swear to submit myself to the guidance and direction of other men, surrendering my own judgment to their judgments, and my own conscience to their keeping! No, no, sir. I know quite well the fallibility of my own judgment, and my liability to NEW SERIES-No. 16. the slaves in the District of Columbia, with the I and others here, sir, are denounced as Abo- SENATE. consent of the people. I add, further, to meet the requirements of those who suppose that a proposition of gradual emancipation to the slaveholding States is either timely now or soon will be so, that while I retain a place in the National Councils, any slaveholding State willing to adopt the humane policy which has been already adopted by own State and by other States, shall have my vote for any aid, either in lands or money, from the Federal Government, which the condition of the public Treasury and of the national domain will allow, in furtherance of an object in which not only the slaveholding States are interested, but which concerns the whole Union, and even human nature itself. Mr. President, I have made my way at last, through the intricate mazes of this discussion, to the actual discussion before the Senate. The bill before us is in these words: "If a suit be commenced or pending in any State court, against any officer of the United States or other person, for or on account of any act done under any law of the United States, or under color thereof, or for or on account of any right, authority, claim, or title, set up by such officer or other person, under any law of the United States, and the defendant shall, at the first term of such State court after the passage of this act, or at the first term of such State court after such suit shall be commenced, file a petition for the removal of the cause for trial into the next circuit court to be held in the district where the suit is pending, or, if there be no circuit court in such district, then to the district court invested with the powers of a circuit court next to be held in said district, and offer good and sufficient surety for his entering in such court, on the first day of its session, copies of said process against him, and also for his there appearing and entering special bail in the cause, if special bail was originally requisite therein, it shall then be the duty of the State court to accept the surety, and proceed no further in the cause; and any bail that may have been taken shall be discharged, and the said copies being entered as aforesaid in such court of the United States, the cause shall there proceed in the same manner as if it had been brought there by original process; and any attachment of the goods or estate of the defendant by the original process shall hold the goods or estate so attached to answer the final judgment, in the same manner as by the laws of such State they would have been holden to answer such final judgment, had it been rendered by the court in which the suit commenced; and the party removing the cause shall not be allowed to plead or give evidence of any other defense than that arising under a law of the United States, as aforesaid." The What is proposed here is an innovation-a new thing a thing.unknown in the laws of the country, since the States came into a Federal Union. The new thing is, that a person, civilly prosecuted in a State court, and justifying under authority or color of a law of the United States, may oust the State of its jurisdiction, and remove the cause into a court of the, United States. first question which arises is, how does the thing stand now? How has it hitherto stood? What are the powers of the State courts, and what are their duties? What are the rights of parties in the State courts? The Constitution of the United States binds together in Federal Union thirty-one States, which, while they remain equal and qualified sovereignties, at the same time constitute, in the aggregate, another qualified sovereignty. In so much as the chief business of Government is to protect the rights of its citizens or subjects, and as the performance of that duty is, under free Governments, assigned to courts of justice, and in so much as the citizen is simultaneously the subject of a State Government and of the Federal Government, the State courts and the United States courts exercise concurrently or coördinately the power of trying civil actions which are brought against persons acting as officers of the Federal Government. The public officers of the United States are, as we all know, numerous, and of many classes-civil, military, and naval. They are engaged in executing laws relating to the Army, the Navy, the customs, the public lands, the post office, the judiciary, and foreign relations. These agents may be called upon to answer by any person who is aggrieved, either in the proper Federal court, or in a court of the State where the grievance happened. A case which will illustrate the subject now occurs to me. Two or three years ago, I successfully maintained in the Supreme Court of the United States an action on the case, which had been brought in a justice's court of the State of New York, by a woman, against a postmaster, who had refused to deliver to her a newspaper, on which the postage which could be rightfully demanded was one cent. The postmaster pleaded before the justice, and before the supreme court of 33D CONG....2D Sess. the State, and before the court of appeals of the State, that none but a Federal court could assume jurisdiction in the case. When his plea was finally overruled in the court of last resort in the State, he appealed from that decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. That Court affirmed the decision of the State court, and thus defined the law to be, that United States officers are amenable to civil actions in the State tribunals. The law now remains as it was then expounded, and so it has al vays stood since the establishment of the Constitution itself. It is wise and beneficent, because it surrounds the citizen with a double safeguard against extortion, oppression, and every form of injustice committed by the authority or in the name of the great central executive power. The second question is, what is the nature and extent of the change which you propose to make by the bill which is under consideration? That question is answered in a word. Whenever the rights of a citizen are invaded in any State within the Union, by a person holding a commission, whether civil or military, from the President of the United States, he shall henceforth have only a single safeguard, instead of that double panoply which has hitherto shielded him, and he must either forego redress or seek it in a tribunal of the United States, in which justice is administered by judges appointed by the President and the Senate, and irremovable, except on impeachment by the House of Representatives, and, therefore, responsible in the least possible degree to that wholesome public opinion which is the guardian of public liberty. Every postmaster and his deputy, every marshal and his deputy, every mail-contractor, every stage-driver, every tide-waiter, every lieutenant, every ensign, and even every midshipman, will be independent of State authority, and, when prosecuted before a magistrate or court, in the immediate vicinage where his offense is com- mitted, will defy the party aggrieved, and remove the action commenced against him into a Federal tribunal, whose terms are rarely held, and then in remote and practically inaccessible places. One half of the power residing in the States is thus to be wrested from them at a single blow, and they will henceforth stand shattered monuments of earlier greatness. Execution of United States Laws-Debate. You tell me, in the next place, that there is danger of insubordination-danger that the State Governments will nullify the laws of the Federal Government. This is always the ready plea for Federal usurpations. It is the same ground which the British Government assumed towards British subjects in the American Colonies, when it transported them beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses. I proclaim in your ears here, and I proclaim before my countrymen, that there is no necessity and no shadow of necessity for this great and fearful change. From every tribunal in any State of this Union which renders a final judgment that can affect the right's of any public officer of the United States, there is an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States reserved to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that high tribunal can, merely by its mandate, annul that judgment, and discharge the party from all its consequences. This, and this alone, was the security which your forefathers established to prevent the evils and dangers of insubordination by the State authorities. I proclaim, further, that when the Constitution of the United States was submitted to the people in the several States, to be adopted by them, the chief objection which was urged against it, the objection which was urged with the most zeal, the most energy, and the most effect, was, that the liberties of the citizen would be brought into jeopardy by the extended power of the Feaeral judiciary. So strenuously was this objection urged, that the Constitution was not adopted until it was demonstrated by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, in the Federalist, that the State jurisdiction, which you are now about to strike down, was left to the States, and could never be wrested from them without an act of Congress, which there was no reason to presume would ever be passed. Sir, this is an important transaction. I warn you that it is a transaction too important to be suddenly projected, and carried out with unusual and unseemly rapidity. It is a transaction that will be reviewed freely, boldly, and through long years to come. You would have done well to have given us a week, or a day, or at least, one hour, to prepare ourselves with arguments to dissuade you from your purpose and to stay your hands. Suffer me to say, with all deference, that you would have done well if you had allowed yourselves time to consider more deliberately the necessity for a measure so bold, and the consequences which must follow it. I repeat, sir, that there is no necessity for this act. In every case which is intended to be reached by it, the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States annuls the judgment of the State court which has mistaken its own powers or encroached upon the Federal authority; and the State itself, with all its dignity and pride, falls humbled and abased at the foot of central and imperial power. I habitually contemplate everything connected with the development of the resources and with the extension and aggrandizement and glory of this my country, with an enthusiasm which I am sure I do not always find burning in the hearts of all with whom it is my duty to act in her Councils. But, sir, I shudder when I think that this development, this extension, this aggrandizement, and this accumulation of glory, are going on firmly, steadily, and crushingly, at the expense of these noble, independent States; that the majestic dome, while it spreads itself more widely and erects itself higher and higher, is pressing into crumbling fragments the pillars which constitute its true and just support. No such change as this was anticipated by the framers of our Federal and State constitutions. They established the Federal Constitution chiefly for the protection of the whole country against foreign dangers. They gave to it a stronger Executive than they gave to the States, respectively. They established the State constitutions chiefly for the protection and defense of personal rights They knew that this central Government would grow stronger and stronger, and would ultimately become an imperial power. It has realized that expectation, and has become even a continental power. Hitherto, the citizen has enjoyed his double safeguard. Why shall one half of his panoply be now torn away from him? What lawful and proper object of the Federal Government has failed to be obtained by reason of the exercise of jurisdiction by State authorities over officers of the United States? None. Why, then, shall the ancient law and custom be changed? Is there danger that the citizen will be too secure under the double protection of the State courts and of the Federal courts? That was not the doctrine of the earlier days, and that is not sound doctrine now. I demand, in the third place, a reason for this innovation. In reply, you urge, first, a precedent. Precedents, in every country, are the stair-way of tyrants. What is this precedent? It is a law which protects the public Treasury, by withdraw- Sir, we have had, on this occasion, as we always ing from the State courts certain actions against have on painful occasions of this kind, pathetic collectors of the revenue. Who knows now with- allusions to the safety of this Federal Union. out more examination than you allow time for us And these allusions have been addressed to me, to make, on what ground, or under what circum- although I have hitherto been content to be a stances, or upon what exigency, that single depart- silent listener to this debate. What do you think ure from the ancient system was made? I do not must be the feelings of a man, himself a repreknow that I should have been in favor of that sentative of three millions-one eighth of your departure. Nor can you show that the innovation whole people; a representative of one sixth of all thus made, and which you now plead as a prece- the freemen in the Republic; a representative of dent, was necessary. We are always wiser in our even a larger proportion of the whole wealth of judgments in retrospect than in anticipation. I the country; a representative of your whole concan now see, when the precedent is pleaded to centrated commerce-when he finds himself surjustify a further departure from the ancient sys-rounded by men who think that a community so tem, abundant reasons to regret that the precedent numerous and so intelligent, and enjoying such was ever established. wealth, and cherishing such interests, are so far || SENATE habitually blinded by passion as to be disloyal to the Union on which all their safety depends? Sir, I almost forget my customary toleration, when I see around me men who know how the interests and affections of their homes cluster and entwine themselves with every fiber of their own hearts, and who yet seem to forget that those interests and affections are the offspring of humanity itself, and therefore common to all men, and suppose that it is treason against the country to protest against the oppression of any one of its many and various masses and races. 1 warn you, Senators, that you are saving this Union at a fearful cost. This is a republican Government-the first and only one that has ever been widely and permanently successful. Every man in this country, every man in Christendom, who knows anything of the philosophy of Government, knows that this Republic has been thus successful only by reason of the stability, strength, and greatness of the individual States. You are saving the Union of those States by sapping and undermining the columns on which it rests. You reply to all this, that there is a newly developed necessity for this act of Federal aggrandizement. There is no such new necessity whatever. The courts of the several States have exercised their concurrent jurisdiction over officers and agents of the United States for a period of sixty years, in cases which involved life, liberty, property, commerce, peace, and war, subject to supervision by the supreme tribunal of the Union; and while individual rights have been maintained, the public peace has been everywhere preserved, and the public safety has never received a wound. During all that time, there has never been an agent or apologist of the Federal power so apprehensive for the public safety as to propose the measure which is now before us. There has never been a time when such a proposition would have been received with favor. There have, indeed, been discontents, but they have been local and transient. Such discontents are incident to free society everywhere, and they are inevitable here. It is through the working of such discontents, that free communities, acting by constitu tional means, and within constitutional restraints, work out the reformation of errors, the correction of abuses, aud the advancement of society. All that has happened is a change of the scene of these discontents, resulting from a change in the geographical direction which the action of the Federal Government takes. Heretofore, the murmurs of discontent came from the South. Now, the breeze which bears them sets in from the North. When the wind blew from a southern quarter, the rights of the citizen were not safe without the interposition of the State tribunals. Now, when it comes from an opposite point of the compass, a Senator from Connecticut [Mr. TouCEY] requires Congress to prohibit that interposition, and to arm the Federal Government with new and portentous power. Mr. President, all this trouble arises out of the fugitive slave law. The transaction in which we are engaged is by no means the first act of a new drama. You began here in 1793 to extend into the free States, by the exercise of the Federal power, the war of races-the war of the master against the slave. The fugitive slave law which was then passed became obsolete. Though no great inconvenience was sustained, the pride of the slaveholding power was wounded. In 1850, you passed a new fugitive slave law, and connected with it measures designed to extend the territorial jurisdiction of the United States over new regions without inhibiting slavery. You were told at that time, as distinctly as you are told to-night, that your new law could not be executed, and would become obsolete for the same reasons that the old law had become obsolete; that the failure of the old law had resulted, not from its want of stringency, but from its too great stringency. You were told then, as distinctly as you are now told, that your new law, with all its terrors, would fail, because, like the old law, and more than the old law, it lacked the elements to command the consent and approval of the consciences, the sympathies, and the judg ments of a free people. The new law, however, was adopted, in defiance of our protest that it was an act of Federal usurpation, that it virtually suspended the writ 33D CONG....2D SESS. of habeas corpus, that it unconstitutionally denied a trial by jury, and that it virtually commanded a judgment of perpetual slavery to be summarily rendered, upon ex parte evidence, which the party accused was not allowed to refute in the due and ordinary course of the common law. You adopted new and oppressive penalties, in answer to all these remonstrances; and, under threats and alarms for the safety of the Union, the fugitive slave bill received the sanction of the Congress of the United States, and became a law. That was the second act. When murmurs and loud complaints arose, and remonstrances came in from every side, you resorted to an old and muchabused expedient. You brought all the great political parties in the United States into a coalition and league to maintain this law, and every word and letter of it, unimpaired, and to perpetuate it forever. All your other laws, although they might be beneficent, and protective of human rights and of human liberty, could be changed, but this one unconstitutional law, so derogatory from the rights of human nature, was singled out from among all the rest, and was to be, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, a decree forever. This was the third act. And where are you now? It is only five years since the fugitive slave law was passed. You have poured out treasure like water to secure its execution. The public police, the revenue service, the Army and the Navy, have been at your command, and have all been vigorously employed to aid in enforcing it. And still the fugitive slave law is not executed, and is becoming obsolete. You demand a further and a more stringent law. The Federal Government must be armed with new powers, subversive of public liberty, to enforce the obnoxious statute. The bill before us supplies those new powers. This is the fourth act. It is easy to be seen that it cannot be the final one. If Sir, I look with sorrow, but with no anxiety, upon these things. They will have their end before long in complete discomfiture. I abide the time, and wait for the event. I perform my duty, the only duty which remains for me now, in protesting against the enactment of this law, and in expressing to you my conviction that you are traveling altogether in the wrong direction. you wish to secure respect to the Federal authorities, to cultivate harmony between the States, to secure universal peace, and to create new bonds of perpetual union, there is only one way before you. Instead of adding new penalties, employing new agencies, and inspiring new terrors, you must go back to the point where your mistaken policy began, and conform your Federal laws to MAGNA CHARTA, to the CONSTITUTION, and to the RIGHTS OF MAN. Mr. BAYARD. Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, and the natural impatience of the Senate, at this time, to have the question disposed of, I cannot permit the views submitted by the honorable Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD] to pass unnoticed, though I am disinclined to prolong this debate. It is not my intention to make any comment on that part of the remarks of the honorable Senator which seemed to me to indicate that the celebrated Frenchman was not altogether void of truth when he said that language was given to us for the purpose of concealing our thoughts. If I were to take the professions of the Senator from New York as to his regard for the preservation of the Federal Union, and contrast them with the tendencies of the measures, and of the system, which he, and those with whom he acts, have supported, I could scarcely believe that he had that regard, no matter what might be the interests of his constituents, for the maintenance of the Union, that his language would seem to indicate. Sure am I that if such be his regard for the Union, he is woefully mistaken as to the effect of his actions and his doctrines in reaching the result at which he appears to hope to arrive. Mr. President, I do not intend to go into any question foreign to the subject immediately before us, but I desire to confine the few remarks I propose to make, strictly to the questions connected with this bill. I hold it to be certain that any Government, in order to be entitled to be called a Government, should be able to carry its own laws into execu Execution of United States Laws-Debate. tion by its own power; otherwise it is no Govern- SENATE. that is by State enactment. You find accordingly that three States of this Union, within the last year, have passed statutes intended to render nugatory a law of the United States which has been decided to be constitutional by some of the ablest State courts of the Union, and also by almost every Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, sitting separately in the circuit courts throughout the Union. Some States, I have said, have passed laws with a view to render that law nugatorylaws such as were read by my honorable friend from Louisiana to-day-which, on the face of their provisions, are shocking to all principles of justice; laws which, among other provisions, contain this one: that if a man makes a claim to property recognized by the Constitution and laws of his country as property, capable of existence, and if, by any accident, (for no exception is made of the death of his witness, or the perjury of the opposing party's witness, or of any other cause whatever,) he fails to support his claim, he is to be imprisoned in the State prison as a convicted felon because of the unsuccessful attempt to assert his rights! The honorable Senator from New York has been pleased to denounce this bill as an innovation on our system. How does he attempt to establish that? Why, sir, he tells us there has always existed a right of appeal from the decisions of the State court of last resort, where a law of the United States is in controversy, and the decision is against it; and, therefore, he says, it is an innova- When such laws as that are passed, with all the tion upon that system if we adopt now the same-influence of some State Legislatures, to prevent, principle-which is, that the decision (no matter and intended to prevent, carrying into execution whether ultimate or not) on questions involving the laws of the United States, made under the the constitutionality, regularity, and effect of an Constitution, is it not a sufficient reason why the act of Congress, whether within their jurisdiction Congress of the United States, having the constior not, must be finally disposed of by the Federal tutional power, should interpose, not for the purtribunals. In what respect is it different? What pose of aggression on the rights of any State, but innovation on the system is it whether the first simply in order to say that the officer, who is to decision be in the State or the Federal court, if the carry out their law, and those who aid that officer, ultimate decision be by the United States courts? if sued in a civil action for anything done under any law of the United States, shall have the election of giving security and transferring jurisdiction to the Federal court, or allowing the suit to proceed to trial in the State court? That is all we propose. It is nothing more than you have done in regard to the revenue system. It is doing what the legislation of some States has rendered necessary, because no man can doubt that, in a State whose Legislature passes laws so atrocious as those of which we had a sample to-day, there would not be the slightest chance of justice to an officer of the United States executing a mandate of the courts of the United States in carrying out the laws of the United States, unless he could transfer his trial to the Federal tribunals of that State. At all events, he is entitled to the option. The honorable Senator was met by the difficulty that the same principle which this bill carries further and applies to all cases of State legislation, was previously adopted in this country in reference to our revenue laws. Under the revenue laws, the right to transfer the jurisdiction has existed for many years without complaint as to its constitutionality. It has stood upon the statutebook unimpeached as to its constitutionality, unobjected to by any quarter of the Union. The bill which we now propose to pass, embodies no other principle, is founded on no other constitutional power, than that which enabled the Federal Government to transfer the jurisdiction in revenue cases from the State to the Federal courts. The principle of the two is precisely the same; but the answer of the honorable Senator to this argument was this: he asked, how do we know, how can we tell, on what ground that departure, as he calls it, from our system was made in regard to the revenue laws? It matters not, Mr. President, what were the particular evils to be corrected which induced the Congress of the United States to pass that law in reference to the revenue system; that does not touch the argument in this case. It is enough to know that Congress have the constitutional power, and that they have exercised it unobjected to by any man in this broad Union. If the question of constitutional authority is settled, how can objections be made to the provisions of the present bill if we give reasons showing that it is expedient and proper now to extend that principle of the revenue laws to other cases of all denominations? What is the reason and the whole theory of our Government on this subject? Sir, the basis on which the Federal judiciary is constituted was, and the very ground of its jurisdiction is, that local excitements in the States, or local jealousies in the States, may prejudice the rights of citizens of other States, or persons acting under the authority of the Union, and on that very ground you give the option of tribunal. Why may it not just as well be said that you are prostrating the State judiciaries by the provision of the Constitution and laws of the United States, that, if a citizen of the State of Massachusetts chooses to sue for his rights of property in Georgia or South Carolina, he shall have the option of going into the Federal tribunals; and that, if he is sued in either of those States, he shall have the means of transferring the jurisdiction from the State to the Federal courts? What is the basis of that? Experience under the old Confederation had indicated that there might be such a state of excitement, arising from local or temporary causes, as to prevent the probabili ties of justice, which might bias the State tribunals, and that, under those circumstances, the Federal tribunal would be the most proper one to determine the question. For this reason, the framers of the Constitution provided not that it should be mandatory, but that the option should be given in such a case with a view to secure the rights of the citizens of the different States under the Federal Constitution; the option was given of being tried either before the Federal or State tribunals. Was this ever considered an indignity or reflection upon the State tribunals? And yet that is based upon the same principle precisely as What is this bill? It arises from a system of legislation which has grown up under the influence of a spirit of fanaticism, a spirit which is striking at the foundations of this Union. Within the last eight or ten years what has been the progress of things? The act of Congress called the fugitive slave law was modified, was made practically enforcible, no more. None of its essential principles were altered from the time of its first enactment to the passage of the amended law of 1850. When that law was passed, the first steps of the honorable Senator's coadjutors, and those who think with them, were open resistance to the law. They went even so far as to murder an officer of the United States in the performance of his duty. But, sir, prudence taught them that this species of resistance to the laws of the United States, under any plea of philanthropy, or what-the bill which we now seek to pass. That prinever they cloaked it under, would never be sanctioned by the sentiment of the people of the country. Finding that to be so, they have since resorted to another mode of nullifying and rendering nugatory the constitutional laws of the United States, and || ciple is, that circumstances might occur, that there might be excitement, there might be a perverted state of sentiment in reference to the rights of citizens of another State, which would prevent justice being administered in the State tribunals; and, 33D CONG....2D SESS. therefore, throughout the whole country, from the earliest origin of the Government, there have been Federal tribunals provided, to which citizens of the States might remove their causes from the State tribunals. The same reason applies here; it is unanswerable. We have shown a state of facts justifying this. There is a party who first attempted an organized opposition to this Government. I will not speak of their motives; but certainly, if their objects be effected, this Union must certainly be at an end. An organized party has grown up, formidable I admit-and I admit it with sorrow and regret-which first attempted to put at defiance a law by mobs and by murder. They found that there was yet remaining too much attachment to the Union, and they had so much reflective power remaining themselves as to see that four or five instances of that kind would necessarily make their fellows stop and inquire into the motives of the action of men who used such a mode of proceeding to sustain their opinions. Then they have had resort to State legislative action for the purpose of attaining the same object which they first sought to attain by open resistance to the laws. It is to meet that contingency that the present bill has become imperative, and is within the terms of the Constitution, fully and to its broadest extent, as much as the same provision in our revenue laws. If the same legislation which was conferred under the revenue laws was constitutional, as applied to them, the shadow of a distinction cannot be made between the constitutional powers as exercised there, and as intended to be exercised here. It is no answer whatever to allege that you do not know the motives under which that law was passed; they may have been totally different; but if the power existed to pass it, then it is no innovation upon the Federal Constitution when the same principle, under a different state of circumstances, calls for the enactment of the present bill. Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, on a former occasion, as slavery was about to clutch one of its triumphs, I rose to make my final opposition to it at midnight. It is now the same hour. Slavery is again pressing for its accustomed victory, which I again undertake for the moment to arrest. It is hardly an accidental conjunction which thus constantly brings slavery and midnight together. Since eleven o'clock this forenoon we have been in our seats, detained by the dominant majority, which, in subservience to slavery, has refused to postpone this question or to adjourn. All other things are neglected. The various public interests which, at this late stage of the session, all press for attention, are put aside. According to the usages of the Senate, Friday is dedicated to the consideration of private claims. I have been accustomed to call it our day of justice, and I have been glad that, since these matters are referred to us, at least one day in the week has been thus set apart. But slavery grasps this whole day, and changes it to a day of injustice. By the Calendar, which I now hold in my hand, it appears that, at this moment, upwards of seventy-five private bills, with which are associated the hopes and fears of widows and orphans, and of all who come to Congress for relief, are on your table neglected, aye, sir, sacrificed to the bill which is now urged with so much pertinacity. Like Juggernaut, the bill is driven over prostrate victims. And here is another sacrifice to slavery. But I do not adequately expose the character of this bill when I say it is a sacrifice to slavery. It is a sacrifice to slavery in its most odious form. Bad as slavery may be, it is not so bad as hunting slaves. There is a seeming apology for slavery at home, in the States where it prevails, founded on the difficulties in the position of the master and the relations of personal attachment which it sometimes excites; but every apology fails when you seek again to enslave the fugitive whom the master could not detain by duress or by kindness; and who, by courage and intelligence, under the guidance of the north star, has achieved a happy freedom. Sir, there is a wide difference between a glaveholder and a slave-hunter. But the bill before you is to aid in the chase of slaves. This is its object. This is its" being's end, and aim." And this bill, with this object, is pressed upon the Senate by the honorable Senator from Execution of United States Laws-Debate. Connecticut, [Mr. ToucEY.] Not from slave soil, but from free soil, comes this effort. A Senator from the North-a Senator from New Englandlends himself to the work, and with unnatural zeal helps to bind still stronger the fetters of the slave. Mr. RUSK. Will the honorable Senator allow me to interrupt him? Mr. SUMNER. Certainly. Mr. RUSK. I ask him to point out the words in this bill where slavery is mentioned. Mr. SUMNER. I am glad the Senator from Texas has asked the question, for it brings attention at once to the true character of this bill. know its language well, and also its plausible title. On its face it purports to be "a bill to protect officers and other persons acting under the authority of the United States;" and it proceeds to provide for the transfer of certain proceedings from the State courts to the circuit courts of the United States. And yet, sir, by the admission of this whole debate, stretching from noon to midnight, it is a bill to bolster up the fugitive slave act. Mr. RUSK. I have not listened to the debate, but I ask the Senator to point out in the bill the place where slavery is mentioned. If the Constitution and laws appoint officers and require them to discharge duties, will he abandon them to the mob? Mr. SUMNER. The Senator asks me to point out any place in this bill where "slavery" is mentioned. Why, sir, this is quite unneces sary. I might ask the Senator to point out any place in the Constitution of the United States where "slavery" is mentioned, or where the word "slave" can be found, and he could not do it. Mr. RUSK. That is evading the question. I asked the Senator to point out in the bill the clause where slavery is mentioned. The bill proposes to protect officers of the United States, whom you appoint, in discharging their duties. If they are to be left unprotected, repeal your law. Mr. SUMNER. I respond to the Senator, with all my heart, "repeal your law." Yes, sir, repeal the Fugitive Act which now requires the support of supplementary legislation. Remove this ground of offense. And before I sit down, I hope to make that very motion. Meanwhile, I evade no question propounded by the honorable Senator; but I do not consider it necessary to show that "slavery" is mentioned in the bill. It may not be found there in name; but slavery is the very soul of the bill. Mr. RUSK rose. Mr. SUMNER. The Senator has interrupted me several times; he may do it more; but, perhaps, he had better let me go on. Mr. RUSK. I understand the Senator; but I make no boast of that sort. Mr. SUMNER. Very well. At last I may be allowed to proceed. Of the bill in question, have little to say. Its technical character has been exposed by various Senators, and especially by my valued friend, the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. CHASE,] who opened this debate. Suffice it to say, that it is an intrusive and offensive encroachment on State rights, calculated to subvert the power of the States in the protection of the liberties of their citizens. This consideration alone would be ample to secure its rejection, if the attachment to State rights, so often avowed by Senators, were not utterly lost in a stronger attachment to Slavery. But on these things, although well worthy of attention, I do not dwell. Objectionable as the bill may be on this ground, it becomes much more so when I regard it as an effort to bolster up the Fugitive Slave Act. Of this act it is difficult to speak with moderation. Conceived in defiance of the Constitution, sentiment of and humanity, it should be regarded as an outice. human tyve the form of legislation, but it lacks every essential element of law. I have so often exposed its character on this floor, that I shall be brief now. SENATE. I challenge honorable Senators to produce it. I fearlessly assert that it cannot be done. The obligations imposed by the "fugitive" clause, whatever they may be, rest upon the States, and not upon Congress. The associate clause touching the" privileges of citizens" has never been made a source of power. It will be in the recolletion of the Senate that, during the last session, the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. BENJAMIN,] in answer to a question from me, openly admitted that there were laws of the southern States, bearing hard upon colored citizens of the North, which were unconstitutional; but when I pressed the honorable Senator with the question whether he would introduce or sustain a bill to carry out the clause of the Constitution securing to these citizens their rights, he declined to answer. Mr. BENJAMIN. I think, Mr. President, I have a right to set the record straight upon that point. I rose in the Senate on the occasion referred to, as will be perfectly well recollected by every Senator present, and put a respectful question to the Senator from Massachusetts. Instead of a reply to my question, he put a question to me, which I answered, and then I put my question. Instead of replying to that, he again put a ques. tion to me. Considering that as an absolute evasion of the question which I put to him, I declined having anything further to say in the discussion. I was not here submitting to an interrogatory from the gentleman. I put to him a respectful question. He preferred to put one to me instead of answering mine. I yielded and answered; and when I again repeated mine, he continued interrogating me. It was obvious to every Senator present that he evaded an answer to my question, and 1 therefore let the matter drop. Mr. SUMNER. The Senator from Louisiana will pardon me if I suggest that there is an incontrovertible fact which shows that the evasion was on his part. The record testifies not only that he did not reply, but that I was cut off from replying by the efforts and votes of himself and friends. Let him consult the Congressional Globe and he will find it all there. I can conceive that it might have been embarrassing to him to reply, for had he declined to sustain a bill to carry out the clause in question, it would have been awkward, at least, to vindicate the Fugitive Slave Act. And yet there are Senators on this floor who, careless of the flagrant inconsistency, vindicate the exercise of power by Congress under the "fugitive "clause, while their own States at home deny to Congress any power under the associate clause, assume to themselves a complete right to determine the extent of its obligations, and ruthlessly sell into slavery colored citizens of the North. Mr. BUTLER. Does the Senator allude to my State? Mr. RUSK. No; to mine. Mr. BUTLER. If he means South Carolina I will reply to him. This is about the fourth time, I think, that the Senator, and his predecessor [Mr. Winthrop] before him, have alluded to the laws of South Carolina If that be his allusion, I intend to give some facts in relation to the subject of which I have put myself in possession since Mr. Winthrop formerly brought it here for discussion. If the Senator intends to allude to South Carolina let him say so. Mr. SUMNER. I do allude to South Carolina, and also to other southern States; but especially to South Carolina. Mr. RUSK. Does the Senator allude to Texas? Mr. SUMNER. The Senator had better allow me to go on. When I have finished, he can make any explanation he thinks necessary. do Mr. RUSK. I will not take the trouble; I do the game is worth the Mr. SUMNER. Very well. The Senator can as he pleases. But let me say, that if I allude to these States, it is not to bring up and array the hardships of individual instances, but simply to show the position occupied by them on a consti tutional question identical with that involved in the Fugitive Act. And now, at the risk of repėl tition, if I can have your attention for a brier moment, without interruption, I will endeavor to state anew this argument. There is an argument against it which has especial importance at this moment, when the Fugitive Act is made the occasion of a new assault on State rights. This very act is an assumption by Congress of power not delegated to it under the Constitution, and an infraction of rights secured to the States. Show me, sir, if you can, the clause, sen- The rules of interpretation, applicable to the tence or word in the Constitution which gives to clause of the Constitution, securing to the citi Congress any power to legislate on this subject.zens of each State all privileges and immunities of |