Press enter after choosing selection

Report On Personal Liberty

Report On Personal Liberty image
Parent Issue
Day
4
Month
March
Year
1844
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

To dny we publish the Report of the Committee on Federal Relations, adverse to the petitions for the further protection of Personal Liberty. This is according to our custom of presenting both sides of a subject, that our readers may be able to judge for themselves, and not act or believe on ex parte statements. As the subject will come up again hereafter, we sball now only offer a few brief rema rks. 1. We are disposed to treat with the ut most courtesy those who honestly diner from us to any extènt, and who express that difference in a respectful and courteous manner; but it appears to us that the manner in which Ihis report begins and ends is supercilious, not to say insulting. It may not have been so intended. It rnay not appear so to others. But why so formally ment ion that there are 50,00Ö voters in the State, and only 525 of these "purport" to have signed the petitions - that they came only from six out of 30 counties;that the Committee believe the petitioners have never read the Constitution, Act of 1793, or the decisions of the Supreme Court, &c: and in compassion to their ignorance, the Committee very kindly inform them that each abolitionist is liable to pay #500 for every obstruction he places in the way of a slave catcher recovering hisprey! This Committee consist ofJ. L. SCHOOLCRAFT, of Chippewa. H. N. WALKER, of Wayne, E. W. FAIRFïELD.of Lenawee, W. W. MURFHY, o[ Hillsdale, F. LIVERMORE, of Jackson. 2. The main argument of the Committee, is that the State Legislature, according to the decisión of the Supreme Court. have no power to pass such a law as is asked for. The following extract from the decisión of the Supreme Court, as we have it, we think places the matter beyond all question. The Court say: "The power exercised by State magistrates, under the law of 1793, was only by sufferance. Congress had no power to vest State officers, as such.,withsuch privileges. ff?1 The States might, clearly 'prohi'bit their magistrales from any interference in the cöse.".) "In our opinión, the legislation of Congress is exclusive, and does not admit of any legislation by a State, either to supply the deficiencies, or to limit the operation, of the act of Congress." ':State magistrates & officers might act under the law of Congress, ünless proHIBITED BY A LAW OF THE STATE."This seems to us sufficiently clear and explicit. But admitting for the sake of argument, that this State has no right to prohibit their magistrales fïom actiñg under the law of 1793 for the deterrninaiion oí claims for fugitives - admitting that that law is rigidly binding on us and on our Jegislature, we ask the committee to suslain the position which they have laid down as follows:"Any law of this State "prohibitingany sheriff, jailor, or other officer or citizen of this State15 from aiding in seizing, arresting, or transportingany fugitive slave to the State from which such slave fied, would notonly be a perfect nullity, but it would be a direct infrction of the ConBtitution, a gross disobedience of a constitutional act of Congress." In the first place, the petitioners have never asked for what is here attributed to them. They ask for a prohibition of the offlcers or citizensof this Stateing, deiaining, or imprisoning any person claimed as aslave,or aiding in the transfortation of any person so claimed f rom tkis State." Thisisavery different thing from that set iorth by the committee. We cali upon the Committee to show how compliance with this request would be a direct infraction of the U. S. Constistution. Does that instrument say that every jailor or sheriff or citizen shall help in arrestingand keeping fugitives? - It saysnosuch thing. It merely declares that no such fugitive shall be discharged from the service of the claimant, but shall be delivered up on claim to the party to ■vi'hom service may be due. How then ■would the proposed action be "an infraction of theConstitution"? Will the committee explain1? Secondhj, it is alledged that it would 'be agross disobedience" of the act of 1703. In what way does that act require ■ the assistance of any officer or citizen ofthis State, except magistrates? Wil? the Committec please to look at the third section of that act, which themselves have quoted: what does it say? It conteinplatcs a fugitive as owing service to his master, and escaping trom that service into another state. Thus he is at jargerthis is one condition. "The person to whom such service or labor may be due, his agent or altorneif - mark, not the sheriff; nor the constable, nor the jailor, nor the citïzen - but the claimant, his agent or attorney - "is empowered to seÍ2e or arrest such fugitive." $JNo olher person is authorized to make such sei'.ure: and he rcho does it, may he lau-fully resistcd to any cxtent, and. is also Hable for an assault andj"orunlairful imprisonment. if not for kidnapping. LQ We hope all anti-slavery men will remember this. andtest the question immediately, as soon as any person not lawfully authorized lays hands on any one claimed as a fugitive. When Latimer-was imprisoned in Boston, this question was raised, and the Sheriff, after getting counsel, dctermined to sel him free, because. he found he had no law whatever for holding him in custody; and so fully convinced were the parties concerned in his imprisonment of ite illegallity, that a special provisión was inserted in the bilí of sale by whích Latimer was p.urchased. that no prosecutions sfiould be commenced against them on account oftheir parí in transaction. But to return. The fugitive can be arrested only by the-claimant, his agent orattornev: by them he must be brought before the . jusliccj and after sufficient proofis made, the magistrale sfeáll giVé a certifícate of that fact to - the constable, sheriff or jailor? no, but "to such clabnant, his agent.or altornexf ; and this certifícate shall be a sufficient warrant í'or renYoving him from the State. Thus h is seen that the law of 1793 does not require, sanction, or command any person in the State, officer or citizen, to arrest any person as a fugitive. toaid in thcir arrest, or to aid in their transportation from the State. The law of ''OS contemplates the fugitive at large, then as arrested by, and in custody ofthe claimant, by whom only he is tjbe removed f rom the State. Excepting magistrates,no person hasany legal right to in terfere :n any way in this contest between claimant and servant. And fiQw when we ask the Legislature to próhibit all but persons legally authorized from making seizures. this Committee comes forward and very self-sufficiently informs us that the legislation we seek, which exactly carries out the law of '93, is "a gross disobedienceof it"ü Will the Committee condescend to explain in what this disobedience would consist? W hen a sheriff or jailor holds a fugitive in custody in his official capacity.bywhat law does he hold lam? We would thank this committeer to teil us.4. The Committee oppose such an act bec.ause "the blacks of the South" -shouid not "be placed on the same footing with the white laborers of this State"!! Here is a very strong case of colorophobia! - Observe the contrast in colors. The "blacks" must not come among the "white" laborers of this State. Had the Committee not been serving in theïr official capacity. they miglit doubtless have expressed the same sentiment in the concise and forcible langaage of the vulgar negro-hater - "W-e d-o-n-t w-a-n-t a-n-y n-j-g-g-e-r-s h-e-r-e!"5. The Committee think it would be "idle for them to profess unraitigated hostilityto slavery incalí its forms". We are of the same opinión. 1 1 would be a work of supererogation! 6. But that they are real serviles is evident from theapprehension they express of incurrinpdium in the estimation of many of our sister States." A northern legislator is ahvays listening, with lus hand behind bis ear, to bear what theslaveholders will say for or against any kind of legislation. They are consulted as a sortof divinities who, if not worshipped, must yet be obeyed. The Committee, however, in this case, are right in their assertion. Such an act would make Michigan Democracy look t:odious" in the eyes of such beautiful democrats as Calhoun and his compeers! 7. The Legislature of Massachusetts and Vermont, representing morethan a million of the most intelligent freemen of our country, have enacted with great unanimity, such laws as are here asked. We suggest to the numerous editors in those States the propriety of publishing the reasons here assigned by our Michigan Committee. If it answers no other pur pose, it may teach the Yankees that their legal and constitutional knowledge is very far behind that of the Wolverines. But, to be serious. for this is a grave matter, and we wish to treat those who diner from us with all due respective are fully convinced that what is asked for is right, íawful, and expedient - that it is demanded for the protection of our citizensof all colors - that as it intimately relates to the highest interests of man, his right of personal liberty, it is well worthy the attentíon of Democrats - and that such legilation will ultimately be had, unless thé object sought shall be attained in some other way.

Article

Subjects
Signal of Liberty
Old News