States;" he is not a "judge," holding office "during good behavior," but only a commissioner, removable at the pleasure of the men who appointed him. Nor is this all; but the law, not content with subjecting the alleged fugitive to "unreasonable seizure," with depriving him, substantially, of the benefit of "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," withholding "the right of trial by jury," by "due process of law," and before the "judicial power of the United States," goes further, and offers a bribe to the commissioner to decide against liberty and in favor of bondage. The act gives to the commissioner an incitement to decide against his victims, by offering him a "fee of ten dollars," if he enslaves his victim; and only a "fee of five dollars," if he decides the other way! To the committee this provision appears atrocious; it holds out a premium for legal wickedness. We are amazed that any one should deem it constitutional. It would be a parallel in legislation to provide that, in capital trials, the judges should have a hundred dollars a-piece for each man they should hang, and only fifty, when the man should be acquitted, and that the jury should also be paid twice as much for the men they found guilty as for those they found not guilty.

These are the chief constitutional objections, which the committee bring against the law; but beside these, we think it needlessly severe in other particulars against the alleged fugitive, and such as allow him the smallest shelter. It provides, that if any one "shall aid, abet, or assist such a person, so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such claimant," "he shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months," and “shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages," "the sum of one thousand dollars for each fugitive so lost." We are astonished at such penalties denounced against an act of mercy, which common humanity prompts, and religion commands.

But leaving these and all the previous objections to this law, the committee are of the opinion that Congress has no constitutional power to legislate on this matter. The power

of Congress to make this law, and the previous act of 1793, is claimed under the following provision of the constitution : "No person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor is due." We will refer to but a single ambiguity; - by whom shall he "be delivered up"? It must be, first, by the people acting jointly or severally; or secondly, by the state to which he has escaped; or, thirdly, by the federal government. The Supreme Court has decided in favor of the federal government; but the committee think that this function of delivering up constitutionally belongs to the individual states to which the fugitive may have escaped. The committee are happy to have on their side the opinion of so celebrated an "Expounder of the Constitution," as Mr. Webster, who says, in his speech of March 7, 1850, "I always thought that the constitution addressed itself to the legislatures of the states, or to the states themselves." "It seems to me that the import of the passage is, that the state itself shall cause him [the fugitive] to be delivered up."

The committee find the same opinion, in a report made by the committee on the judiciary of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, in 1837, which says, -"That no general authority upon the subject of slavery, or upon a subject which shall draw this after it as an incident, is any where given to the general government."

Considering this law as unjust in its nature, wrong in its principle, hostile to the designs of all just human laws, deeming it in the highest degree unconstitutional, in general and in detail, we do not hesitate to declare that we consider it an infamous and wicked statute, a law not fit to be made and not fit to be kept. It is a disgrace to the age we live in, a reproach to the nation which glories in the name of democracy, and a foul shame to the people that profess a religion, whose great practical rule of conduct is, "To do unto others as we wish them to do to us." Your committee lack time, as well as language, to express the abhorrence and loathing which

they feel for this law. Yet it is a law of the land, not officially declared unconstitutional. Unconstitutional, as we believe it, inhuman and wicked, as it unquestionably is, it is still a law, and forcible resistance to it is a legal misdemeanor. Its results are most disastrous. The innocent citizens, who have fled from bondage, and found a home and reared families among us, are forced to flee, and to seek in a monarchy an asylum from the injustice and cruelty of a republic! They flee for liberty from America to England! A queen's diadem protects Christian men from the slave-driver's whip, tender women from a master's lust, and new-born babes from his thirst for gold. The slave-hunter profanes the soil of Massachusetts, seeking whom he may devour. His presence spreads terror among the colored people of our state. He is a hawk among doves, a wolf, a hyena, among lambs. It is with deep mortification your committee confess that persons are found in this city, who consent to sell their professional services to the base purpose of enslaving men; - that among them are found persons whom this commonwealth has honored with the commission of justice of the peace, who trample under foot our own constitution, in their efforts to enforce this wicked law. We confess we deem it no less a crime against nature and humanity to enslave a fugitive than to steal a free To our judgement, the illegal kidnapper on the coast of Africa, and the legal man-hunter in Boston, belong to the same class of felons. They differ, however, specifically, and we think the native species far worse than the foreign felon, whom all Christian governments, and our own among the number, have denounced as a pirate. We say this advisedly. We have studied the action, have analyzed its motives, and have examined its excuse. But while we gladly fold the mantle of charity over the shame of men, whom poverty and ignorance conduct to crime, we can find no palliation for the hideous spectacle of citizens of Massachusetts, and even officers in her service, in the very city of the Pilgrims, seeking to enslave a man. Let us turn off our eyes from a spectacle so ghastly and disgraceful.

man.

The report then presented the substance of certain resolutions, adopted by the Legislature in 1839, 1840, 1847, 1849, 1850. Two "Resolves concerning Slavery," and "An Act in addition to an Act further to protect personal Liberty," were appended to the report. The resolves declared,- First, "That Massachusetts affirms anew her hostility to slavery and her devotion to the Union; that, inspired by these cherished sentiments, she longs for harmony among the different parts of our common country; but she cannot conceal the conviction that this can be finally and permanently secured only by the overthrow of slavery, so far as the same can be constitutionally done, every where within the jurisdiction of the national government; that the free states may be relieved from all responsibility therefor, so that freedom, instead of slavery, shall become national, and slavery, instead of freedom, become sectional." And Second, "That Massachusetts protests against the Fugitive Slave Law as alien to the spirit of the constitution, destructive of rights secured by that instrument, hostile to the sentiments of Christianity, and abhorrent to the feelings of the people of this commonwealth; that such a law will naturally fail to secure that support in the heart and conscience of the community, without which, any law must, sooner or later, become a dead letter."

It was contended that the report and the bill involved the doctrine of NULLIFICATION, and that the argument in the report was no better than an attempt to justify treasonable opposition to law, and an apology for acts that would lead to a dissolution of the Union.

The report was attacked and commented on with severity by Senators who are entitled to my respect for their intelligence, patriotism, and moral integrity, but whose names, in this connection only, I have no wish to remember. The second resolve was particularly objected to, because it declared the Fugitive Slave Law "hostile to the sentiments of Christianity"! Both bill and resolves were rejected by a considerable majority.

DEDICATION

PREFACE

CONCLUSION.

*

These volumes are dedicated to MY CHILDREN and to THE FRIENDS, who, in a time of deep and desponding embarrassment, relinquished claims, which, if enforced, would have made succeeding life a period of hopeless labor: To these, the offering is worthless, except as a testimony of grateful remembrance: - To those, (it is all the legacy I can leave them,) let it be a motive and an admonition :-TO ALL, it is presented with sentiments which none can understand, but those who rejoice in the possession of moral and mental independence, who have felt the power of filial and parental affection, and who know how to estimate the value of a substantial kindness.

There is nothing in this personal history sufficiently remarkable to interest the public; and, though not insensible to the voice of public approbation, the coolest reception will produce no murmur of discontent, nor cause a pang of disappointment. The chief

See page 105 - note.