An Official Confession

AVo have' ever daimed tbat the luw of 1S55, commonly known as the " personal hborty law," was unoönstitution, and that it was dusigned sololy to provciit the exeuution of the fugitivo slave faw, nd tlms aimcd at the rrüllificftfion of an net of Congress. The constitutionality of iholiiw has sometí mes been ohafffied', bnt its abrogating and nuïlifyingobji.'ct has nover until recently bean duuiud. The Lcgi-l:ituro that passed t did not Locitate to avow that ts object was to obstriiut the exeoution of tha fugilive slave hnv,aiid prevent tho rendilion of fugitive laves; and acora ïnittee of a eubseqite'rit Legislatura bns declared in expresa terina, that lutüre aoiion on thu part of tbe Legirïature to preven the aeiveritig vj of fvgiiive slarct - not the kidnapping of freernen ' - is tfii necessary, as the wt of , ry Zth, 1855, was DRSIGNBD to, and if failhfully cxrculed, WILI accomplish tuk object." The Leiislatnre' of 1855, and the Legislatura uf 1859 were more honust thaii tbose Rupublioans who today claim that tha "personal liberty-law" was onJy designed to prevent kidnapping and protect free:nen, and tb at it was ncver intended to prevent the execution c.{ the fugitivo slavo !aw. To suBtfiin us in our aacertion as to ts aim, we wil quote frotn the record. On the 4th day of February 1859,- sue House Journal, puge 527 or JjTniae document, No. 17 - the majority of the Oommittee on Federal Relations submitted a report, of vrhioh we quote the firt paragraph ; "The Coaimittee on Federal Relations, to whom was reforred sundry petitioua rdative to the dehvering up of fugit.ive tlaves, Atv praying fok a lavv to prkvknt tui; samk; alio tile peUtioD of Louis North and 108 othera, prayi ii ir that it rnay be mada a State pnson otfenoe to claim the right of property in, or exercise the rig-ht of property over, another in thi.s State, have bad the samo undef oouaideration, and beg leave to report, tbat in regard to tht petitlOD PBATIM8 POR TEí PA88AOE OF a uw Tü PBEVENTTHE DELIVBRI.NQ UP OF FÜGiTIVE SLAVES, TIIATFURÏHBR ACTION ON TUÍ PAKT OF T1IB LeOILLAÏURK IS NOT NKCK3SAEY, A3 TIIB ACT OF FeBKUABï' 13, 1855, WAÖ DJíSKtNED TO, and, if faithFULLY EXECUTED, WIÍJj ACCOMPLISH TtfB Oli-fliOr FOll WHIOH THE PETITIONER6 PRAY." Not a word is said liere about kidnapping, the petitionerá were not solicitous about tlie r,ght oí the free colored persons, and asked nothing in their be half; they petitioned 'reiative totïie deliveting up of fugitive slaves, and prayed for a ïanv to prevent the saine." Did the committte eay in aoswer to the petitioners that lugitive elaves must be given up, and that the laws protecting freemen were suffiuient ? No, they say no íurlher legislation o prevent deliveringup fugitive slates is neeessary, that ''the act of February 13th, 1855 was designed to, and, ii faithully exeetited, wil) aoeomplish the object for whiob the petitioners pray." This is plain English, and Messrs LaMR, öillüly, Land, Mii.es and Pkrkins, doubtIöss understood its coaan ng. Without further commont we Bubmit these simple faets to those Republicans. who now claim that the act of 1855 was never designed to prevent the enforcingof the fugitiva slave law, and.did not aim to nullify its provieions. The records aro ngainst them.