The Personal Liberty Laws

The President of tlie Chicago Coiirnntion which nominated Mr. Lincoln fcr the Presidenoy was Oeoroe Ajiimoí, of Massachusctts. He has reeently written a letter, in roply to one addressod to him by llon. B. C. Winihkop, on the questiou of the repeal of the personal libertv law of his own State. We Bubjoio the essential portions of bis letter, and oommend it to the attention of the Legislature of Michigan, simply reraarking that the objectionable lawd of Michigan and Maasachusetta are nearly idealical. Mr. AsiiMUN vrrites: "I say, then, without hesitation, that in my judgment the enactments of our Legislature which are intended or c:üculated tü iinpair tho forco and oifeet of the fugitivo slave aets of Congress are wliolly unconstitutional und void. Thev should nover hare been passed, and oug'ht not to be permitted to reraaia ou our statute book I denounced them when they wera fir.=t projeeted, and have never failed to fes] and expresa a deep regrot that any of our people should have been led, by acts of injuHtice on the part of any of our sister States, to retalíate by nn act of indefensibie wrong on our own part. The personal liberty act, as it is commonly ealled, was first passed over the voto of l ernor Gardner in 1855 - at a time whon tho wild surge of the ' know nothing' tempest was sweeping through uil our halls of legislation. Many of its most obnoxious features were stricken out at tho earnest recommendation of Governor Banks in 1858. Thero was an intention of entire repeal manifested in tire Legislature of 1856, and a biil for that parpóle had aetually passed tho trial stage in the llouso of Repre.-ientatives, and with every prospect of final euocess, when the news of the assault on Mr. Sumuer so mnved ibe public iudignation as to arrest for a time every useful effort in Ihat direction. By this uiüans sonie of the obnoxious provisions of that act still remain and ara incorporatad iuto our goncral statutes, and stand as a reproach to the usually just and congerrative charactcr of our State legislation. No case has ariaori under them, nor is likely to arigs, which would euable our judiciary to pronounce on their validity ; but I have no doubt, if a oase should be prfsentsd, that eur own highett judicial tribunal would declare them nuil and void, so far as ttey go to defisat or impair tho true inteut and purposo of the aets of Congress. "The fugitivo slavo acts of 1793 and 1850 were passed in exeeution of a cluuse of the constitution of the United States, to which all tho people of the Union gave solemn asent ; and tbough they contain provisions which ara necessarilv harsb, and though, in my judgment, they wou'd bc more effectual to proteot the interests of the claimant if the right of trial by ju ry, upon the question of idautity, had been given, yet those laws have been held by nll our courta, State as well as Federal, to be binding on us, as having boon enacted strictiy within the conatitutional powers of Congress. Our own Supremo Court of Massachusptts,with itsfive república!) judgos, has so recognized them ; und probably no onojudgo has had so frequent occasion to execu e and enforce their requiremeats as that learned, upright and humane republican, Mr. Justioe MeLsan, of Ohio. Mr. Donglas, the other day, in the Senutc, did no more than justice whon he gaid that ' Judgo McLean, a republican judge, had ahvayg exsoutod thefagitive slave law with entira tidelity.' " No State, Uien, can be right iu attempting by legislativo enactraeats to nullify or evada those laws, or retaining aay suoh onactment when its wrongful quality is made to appoar. # " While it is truo that these enact ments have never been enforeod in our State, unquestionably gsneral publ8 attention haa been calltd to them just now for tho reasou that some of the promotors of diíiunion have paraded them as a pre text for the treason which they propose to oomimt in the South; and uinkm'btedly they are a stumbüng blook in the way of the many true frieuds of the Union who3e voico ig, for the present, almost drowned in the general howl which the conspirators hare contrived to raisa. I would not counsel their repeal for the mere purpose of attempting to please the plotters of treason at the South; nor would I refrain from it to gratify fanaticisin which is equiilly hostile to the coustitution in the North The former class openly declare that they care nothing about them, and that their repeal would change no purpose of theirs. You have seeu the Senatorial declarations of Iverson, Cling man, and their compeers to that effect. - And tho mischief-makcr3 of the North, of whom there are too many, who desire to kesp up an inflamed condition of public sentiment, wil], of course. oppose repeal. But they should be repoaled becauae they aro wrong ; and, beiug wrong, our own good cause is weakonod by their oontinuancs, and the sincere frionds of the Uoiou in the South are weakenod bccauso thore is this singlo and only vulnerable pomt which they oannot delend. Let our own State be right, and thus be invulnerable ! " Let us, h ooming before the august tribunal of public opinión, and asking for the just judgmunt of tho civilizad world and of posterity, strip ourselves of every impcdiment whioh mty einbarrass us in the conflict. Let Massachuxetts stand erect, oonsoious not only of the righteousness of her cause, but of her fitness for its advocacy." Judge Parker, of Cambridge, has published a letter in the Boston Journal, pronouncing the personal libo, ty law of Magsachusetts unconstitutional ; and the Journal itselr, in a very earnfst article, advooates the repeal of the law. We quote, with unconimoi) satisfaction, the follovving passage fram our eotempurary : " frha quertion put to tho people of M&ggacbusetts thia duy is: AVill you help jour euemies or your iViends ? or, broader and deeper still : Wtü you prestTVê the Union or dïitroy it ? Wo beüeve that the rspeal of the personal liberty bi'l in M;issachusetts will be followed by like action in other States. We believe that single act, without other ooncession, and without any eomprotnise of prinoiple, will so strongthen the hands of our Union friiu.Ls in tho slave States, as to pluce those , States uuder their control, and that ] ing short of it will do it, and thertfore that Union or disunion depends more upon , the action of Massachiactts than upon that of ; Scuth Carolina.'' .. i. . i t" God hfis not made th:s Kfe ] gether lovely, for tlien it would be too ' short and h::rd to leave; nor yet ] er pitiful, for then it would be too long I ' ind hard to bsar. l