C'^/ %/S&V* \/^^\/* **v^'V* 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 -> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 +* < 
 
 ^*™V V^V v™V %/^V 
 
w 
 
 
 S??V V"\r V*^V V^V V 
 
 W 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 c° , 
 
 
 °o 
 
 -of 
 
 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 MR, RANTOUL, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE U, 1852. 
 
 The Hoxrse being in Committee of the Whole, 
 stnd having under consideration the bill making 
 appropriation for the Indian Department. 
 
 Mr, RANTOUL paid: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: The gentleman from Vermont, 
 fMr. Meacham,] who spoke yesterday, and the 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] 
 who has just taken his seat, have addressed to 
 me, individually, a large portion of the remarks 
 which they have had occasion to make upon the 
 subject of the tariff. Now, sir, I am not con- 
 cerned, but that the common sense of the world, 
 operating as it is upon both sides of the Atlantic, 
 will set this question of free trade and protection 
 right, without any assistance from me, I am not 
 afraid that the people of the United States will be 
 made to believe that the highest taxation is the 
 greatest blessing, I am not afraid that the farm- 
 ers of the West, by any degree of ingenuity, can 
 ever be led to the conclusion that it is better for 
 them to give two barrels of flour for a certain 
 ■quantity of iron, rather than one barrel of flour 
 for the same quantity of iron; and to that it comes. 
 Gentlemen may talk by the hour together about 
 this question. Reduce it down to its ultimate ele- 
 ments, and it is simply this for an agricultural 
 nation: Do you choose, for the product of so 
 many days' labor, to get a ton of iron; or would 
 you prefer, for the same amount of labor, to get 
 only half a ton of iron? If gentlemen of the 
 West think two tons of iron better than one, and 
 if they think they had better buy a given quantity 
 %vith one barrel of flour rather than with two, then, 
 I think, they will never aid Pennsylvania in screw- 
 ing down labor, which has been the effect of pro- 
 tection in England, Spain, and France, and where- 
 ever it has been tried. I think they will never aid 
 Pennsylvania capitalists in screwine; labor to the 
 lowest point, in order to carry out theories which 
 have been tried over and over again, and failed 
 wherever they have been tried. 
 
 Sir, the gentleman who last addressed the House 
 addressed it very ably and very eloquently, but in 
 a long series of historical facts, he is totally mis- 
 taken in his idea. The supposition that civilized 
 nations have always adopted high protective tariffs, 
 is ridiculously wide of the truth. Why, sir, the 
 
 commerce of ancient nations, and the commerce of 
 the middle *tges, flourished in proportion to the 
 freedom of that commerce, and it was the nations" 
 who adopted restrictive systems — the nations that 
 adopted restriction and protection that ruined their 
 commerce, and caused it to depart to other better- 
 conducted nations. 
 
 Now, the gentleman meant to allude, as I sup- 
 pose, although he did not specify it, to the Italian 
 Republics of the middle ages, and to the great com- 
 merce which extended round the shores of the 
 Mediterranean. Now, sir, the gentleman may go 
 as far back as he pleases — he may go back to Athens, 
 a Republic made great, and wealthy, and power- 
 ful by her commerce, and Athenian commerce was 
 the creation of free trade — he may go back to the 
 Roman Empire, and take the tariff under Diocle- 
 tian, when the Roman commerce was at its height. 
 
 The tariff of the time of Diocletian was a tariff 
 lower than that of England now, and that df Eng- 
 land, as everybody knows, is a great deal lower 
 than ours. Then you come down to the first 
 tariff that was constructed upon scientific princi- 
 ples, after the downfall of the Roman Empire, 
 which was that adopted under Godfrey de Bouil- 
 lon, King of Jerusalem at the time of the Cru- 
 sades, and put in operation in Syria, and which 
 afterwards became a model for all nations around 
 the Mediterranean, in Italy and everywhere else. 
 You find that it is an " ad valorem" tariff, with 
 very few exceptions, from beginning to end, and 
 most of the duties are eight per cent., while some 
 articles are put at sixteen per cent., and a very 
 few, and those not important, at twenty-four per 
 cent. Under this tariff, so much more liberal than 
 any of later times, modern commerce had its birth. 
 That is the truth of history, and it was the free- 
 dom of commerce in the Italian Republics that 
 made them what they were. It was from their 
 great commerce that their great, wealth sprung up, 
 and from their wealth grew up their immense man- 
 ufactures, and not, as the gentleman supposes, 
 that the commerce was created by the manufac- 
 tures. He was putting the cart before the horse. 
 But I am not going to make a speech upon the 
 subject of the tariff now; but by-and-by, if the 
 House will indulge me, after gentlemen from the 
 
.7f3« 
 
 North, East, and particularly from New England, 
 have said till they have to say in propping up that 
 rotten system which has produced so much misery 
 in England, and lias the same tendency here, I will 
 take the liberty to reply, and for the present, think- 
 ing it quite safe to do so, I leave these arguments 
 without an answer. 
 
 I pass on to a subject of as much more conse- 
 quence than the tariff', as liberty is more important 
 than property. Liberty and property are the two 
 great objects of good government. Government 
 ought to protect them both; and I hold, that of 
 the two, liberty is infinitely the highest in import- 
 ance; and when rights and liberties are outraged, 
 it becomes an imperative duty to speak upon that 
 outrage, and set it right before the country. 
 
 I have been sitting here since the commence- 
 ment of this session — ay, and it began before we 
 took our seats here — I have been sitting here list- 
 ening to denunciations of agitation, and agitators 
 upon a certain subject, which has been handled a 
 great deal upon this floor. " Cease this agitation ! 
 Quiet the distracted country!" That has been 
 the cry. We were told that we must cease agi- j 
 tation upon that subject, at a meeting of the Dem- | 
 ocratic members, before we took our seats here; i 
 we were told so in a manner tending to promote j 
 agitation. We came here on the following Mon- j 
 day, and the first greeting that I received upon this 
 floor, before we went into the election of Speaker, j 
 while I was sitting very quietly, as I generally do, 
 being a quiet and peaceable man, was a denunci- 
 ation of myself individually, by a member from 
 the South, [Mr. Meade, of Virginia,] who spoke ! 
 of me as an agitator, coming here to stir up the 
 nation into strife, to lash the waves of agitation 
 into fury. I made no reply. Very strange for | 
 an " agitator!" Again and again, for at least the j 
 twentieth time, have I listened to the same denun- 
 ciations, without replying. I have been taunted 
 on the floor of this House with being an agitator, j 
 By whom? By gentlemen from the South. All | 
 the gentlemen who have risen here to denounce i 
 agitation, and to stir up bitter feelings by that very j 
 denunciation — all, I might almost say, have come 
 from tire South. And persons who sit quietly in 
 their seats and hear epithets applied to them, which 
 they can scarcely, as gentlemen, listen to without 
 immediately resenting them; gentlemen from the 
 North, who have exercised all this forbearance, 
 are again, and again, and again, and seemingly, 
 without end, taunted in this manner by gentlemen 
 who say that they desire quiet, and that agitation 
 shall cease. If they do so desire, why do they 
 not cease it? I and my friends have made no agi- 
 tation. I have not opened my mouth before this 
 House in any allusion to the subject of slavery, 
 except in reply to a direct attack upon me. Again 
 and again have I suffered such attacks to pass 
 without notice or reply, but still the charge of agi- 
 tation comes from another and another quarter, 
 against me, and all those who think as I do. 
 
 Well, sir, after sitting quiet so long, disposed to 
 leave to abler hands the work I am about to under- 
 take, I am at last singled out in such a manner, 
 that I cannot, as a man of honor, sit quiet any 
 longer. I am compelled to speak by a necessity 
 which I cannot avoid, without the imputation of 
 cowardice, and, as I think, a justly-deserved im- 
 putation of cowardice, if 1 should remain quiet. 
 That is my position. I speak not because I desire 
 it, but because the men who say f* put an end to 
 agitation," compel me to speak, and will not allow 
 
 me to remain silent. That is the reason why is 
 intend at present to discuss this question. 
 
 I said, sir, that these taunts and sneers came 
 from the South, but sometimes they came from 
 gentlemen who happened to be born in the North. 
 Uy what mysterious dispensation of Providence 
 it happened that they were bom there, it i» not 
 for me to conjecture. Why, there comes here 
 from a district represented in the last Congress by 
 an Abolitionist — an Abolitionist elected by the 
 votes of the gentleman's friends — a young strip- 
 ling, Hon. Coljn M. Is-GERsoLL.of Connecticut, 
 who undertook to introduce Benedict Arnold as a 
 subject of comparison on this floor. Well, sir, if 
 Benedict Arnold is to be compared to members of 
 this House, I, for one, claim the liberty to select 
 the member with whom the comparison is to be 
 made. Benedict Arnold, if I recollect aright, was 
 born and brought up in Connecticut, and not in 
 Massachusetts. He was a young gentleman of 
 great promise — a gentleman from whom his friends 
 expected something very magnificent, supposing 
 him to be just the man fitted to rise in the world — 
 a man troubled with no scruples. They were 
 very seriously disappointed in that expectation. 
 Benedict Arnold apostatized from the cause of 
 freedom to the cause of slavery, if i have read 
 history aright. His efforts against slavery did 
 him honor. Ambition riveted about his neck the 
 collar of slavery, and he was damned to eternal 
 infamy. Well, sir, when gentlemen from Con- 
 necticut choose to make comparisons of that sort, 
 let them read their history carefully, tjnd see 
 where a parallel will run; and not jump to find a 
 parallel where there is nothing but a contrast. 
 But, sir, (and that is my excuse for occupying the 
 attention of the committee,) events have recently 
 transpired, which are perfectly well known to 
 every member of the committee, and, therefore, 
 not necessary to be recapitulated in detail at pres- 
 ent, which have singled me out, and made it my 
 duty to explain my position. I am about to 
 speak of this process of putting an end to agita- 
 tion, so wisely conceived by these gentlemen, who 
 must know, if they are sane men, they produce 
 agitition by the course they pursue. 
 
 Sir, when six and a half millions of white men 
 in the South attempt to control the feelings, opin- 
 ions, judgments, and consciences of thirteen and 
 a half millions of white men in the North — when 
 that process is attempted, and when they under- 
 take to drive it through by threats, by force, and 
 by all those appliances which make men revolt 
 against their dictation, they must understand that 
 they have to do with the descendants of the men 
 who commenced and who fought through the 
 American Revolution, and whose characters have 
 not materially changed — those of them who stay 
 at home — however much those who come here 
 may be corrupted by the influences which sur- 
 round them here — 1 say, those who remain at 
 home have not very much departed from their 
 original character. I allude to the circumstances 
 which recently occurred at Baltimore, as my rea- 
 son for addressing the committee at this time. 
 Sir, I was unanimously elected a delegate to the 
 National Democratic Convention by ballot, and on 
 the first ballot, in the fullest convention that has 
 been held in my district for many years — a con- 
 vention regularly called, according to the uniform 
 usage in Massachusetts for the last twenty-five or 
 thirty years. I was sent there to represent five 
 thousand Democrats, who act with the party in its 
 
 Brvcoattg* 
 
regular organization. The convention thought 
 proper to disfranchise my district — the only Dem- 
 ocratic district in Massachusetts — and thought 
 proper thereby to insuit, not merely that district, 
 but the sovereign State of Massachusetts, which 
 was shorn of her proportionate share of represent- 
 ation in the convention by that proceeding. 
 
 They then thought proper to go on and take 
 measures for the union of the Democratic party. 
 Is any one Democrat in Massachusetts bound by 
 what you do in such a convention ? I sneak not 
 of the course which those Democrats may think 
 proper to take. That is a matter for them to de- 
 termine. Butlask if any one Democrat in the State 
 of Massachusetts is under any obligation growing 
 out of the preceedings of a convention in which 
 the State of Massachusetts was deprived of her 
 proportionate number of delegates elected by her 
 ■choice ? That is a question for the Democratic 
 party to consider, and for the Democrats of Mas- 
 sachusetts to consider. 
 
 As to the district which has been thus disfran- 
 chised, why, sir, if there is a district Ln the United 
 States, from the Madawaska to the Rio Grande — 
 if there is a district from Massachusetts Bay to 
 San Francisco that is, and ought to be Democratic, 
 it is the district that I represent; and I should like 
 to compare its history with the history of any 
 other district represented by any other individual 
 upon this floor. 
 
 Sir, in my district is that glorious old town of 
 Marblehead. Elhridge G-erry, coming from the 
 town of Marblehead, was the chairman of the 
 committee that reported the resolutions of the 30th 
 of April, 17S4, giving the power to regulate com- 
 merce to the Government of the nation — the reso- 
 lution that laid the foundation of your Federal 
 union. It was a citizen of my own native town 
 of Beverly, and a native of my own district, Na- 
 than Dane, who was chairman of the committee 
 that reported the resolves of the 21st of February, 
 1787, for calling the Federal Convention at Phila- 
 delphia — the Convention that framed the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States; and that same Nathan 
 Dane, of that same town of Beverly, was the man 
 who drew up the ordinance of 1787, which gave 
 freedom to the broad territory Northwest of the 
 Ohio. 
 
 Well, sir, if I stopped there, I think I should 
 have made out a list of claims for my district which 
 it would not be very easy to surpass. But, sir, 
 the first resistance to the power of Great Britain 
 in the revolutionary struggle was in the town of 
 Danvers — a town in my district, and which ad- 
 joins my own. On the 26th of February, 1775, 
 before the battle of Lexington, that which was 
 done at Lexington and Concord was attempted to 
 be done at Danvers. The British troops marched 
 upon the town to seize the arsenals and stores of 
 the Americans, but they were turned back. They 
 were met by a collection of thp farmers and me- 
 chanics of Salem. Beverly, and Darners, so strong 
 that Colonel Leslie, who commanded the British 
 troops, turned back discomfited of his purpose, 
 knowing that unless he did doso,he and his party 
 would be made prisoners-of-war. Danvers, far 
 distant from Concord, and in a different county, 
 had more men killed in the Concord fight than any 
 other town after the morn.ng massacre. Bev- 
 erly, my native town, sent her sons further than 
 any other town on the 19th of April, 1775, to 
 strike in the first battle for liberty; and I have seen 
 the garment, stained with hia blood, in which 1 
 
 one of her sons was killed on that day. The first 
 Continental flag hoisted upon the ocean, in defiance 
 of British supremacy, was the flag of the schooner 
 " Hannah," fitted out from my own town of Bev- 
 erly. The first commission given by Washington 
 to the commander of any cruiser against Great 
 Britain, was issued to Captain Manly, of Marble- 
 head, in my district. The first in the long list 
 of naval heroes; the first man who poured out his 
 life in that great war against slavery, crying, as 
 Lawrence afterwards cried, "don't give up the 
 ship," was Captain Mugford, of Marblehead, on 
 the 19th of May, 1775. 
 
 There is the material out of which to form a 
 Democratic Congressional district. It is a district 
 that has bright" revolutionary glory — historical 
 glory thickly clustered around it. It is not to me 
 that the insult has been offered, but it is to that 
 district which I have described to you. 
 
 Why, I ask, is it that this insult, has been 
 offered ? It is simply because, as I told the com- 
 mittee who examined that case, when they asked 
 me if I would pledge myself beforehand to agree 
 to the resolutions which might be adopted by that 
 convention, " I do my own thinking, and do not 
 allow any convention to do it for me." That is 
 the reason. Well, now, do gentlemen suppose 
 there are not some millions of white persons at 
 the North, who do their own thinking, as well as 
 myself? If they suppose any such thing, they are 
 grievously mistaken, and by and by the conse- 
 quence of that mistake will begin to appear, a 
 little more clearly than they now appear. It is 
 because I determined to think for myself, and ad- 
 hered to that determination, upon a great question 
 of constitutional law; and thought it a duty incum- 
 bent upon me to avow the conclusions at which I 
 had arrived. 
 
 That question of constitutional law I now pro- 
 pose to examine. It is this: Is there in the Con- 
 stitution of the United States a grant of power to 
 legislate for the rendition of fugitives from labor? 
 I say there is not; and no man who calls himself 
 a Democrat — whether he hails from New Hamp- 
 shire, or any other part of the Union — can for a 
 moment sustain his character as a Democrat 
 upon the position that there is such a grant of 
 power. Why, sir, what is the distinguishing 
 doctrine of the Democratic party? I suppose it 
 is the doctrine laid down by Jefferson, in his com- 
 ments upon the proposed veto of the first United 
 States Bank. Thomas Jefferson says: "I con- 
 ceive the corner-stone of the Constitution to be 
 laid in the tenth article of the Amendments to the 
 Constitution;" the article that no powers can be 
 exercised by the General Government except such 
 as are granted to it; that powers net granted to 
 the General Government "are reserved to the 
 States or to the people." That is the foundation 
 of the Democratic faith , so stated to be by Thomas 
 Jefferson, so understood to be by Samuel Adams 
 and Elbridge Gerry, and all the old Democrats of 
 New England as well as by Virginia, and the 
 Democrats in the South; and that is the doctrine 
 upon which I mean to take my stand. That is 
 the doctrine of the Baltimore resolutions as they 
 were; the doctrine of the resolutions of 1798, '99, 
 adopted at Baltimore the other day, which gentle- 
 men talk about in such a way as to lead one to 
 suspect that they have not read them — the doc- 
 trine of the resolutions of 1798, '99, which declared 
 the alien and sedition laws to be unconstitutional 
 by a course of reasoning which applies as strictly 
 
<o this question of the fugitive slave law as it does 
 to the alien law, or the sedition law, or to any 
 section or clause of either. 
 
 But the State of New Hampshire, when the 
 constitutionality of the alien and sedition laws 
 came up in her Legislature, voted unanimously, 
 in a full House, one hundred and th'uty seven mem- 
 bers being present, and unanimously in the Senate, 
 that those laws were clearly "constitutional, and, 
 in Ike present critical situation of our country," said 
 they, "highly expedient." Js there a man in New 
 Hampshire who believes that now? New Hamp- 
 shire blushes when that page of her history is re- 
 called to the memory. It was then the unanimous 
 opinion of the Senate and House of Representa- 
 tives of New Hampshire, that the alien and se- 
 dition laws were " CONSTITUTIONAL." It 
 is the unanimous opinion of New Hampshire now, 
 that they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and, sir, 
 the day will come when every man's children will 
 blush for his servile heresy upon this question, 
 as the men of New Hampshire now blush for 
 what their fathers did upon that question. 
 
 The question of the constitutionality of such a 
 
 frant of power is within a very narrow compass. 
 t is only necessary to take up the history of the 
 clauses included in the fourth article of the 
 Constitution, and see where they came from, what 
 they mean, and what changes they underwent. 
 Sir, everybody knows that the Constitution con- 
 tains an enumeration of powers granted to Con- 
 gress. The powers granted to Congress stand by 
 themselves, as they did in the old Articles of Con- 
 federation. In another part of that instrument, 
 distinct from the enumeration of powers granted 
 to Congress, you find certain clauses of compact. 
 I suppose there is not a man in this House who 
 will undertake to deny that there are clauses of 
 mere compact in the Constitution — clauses of com- 
 pact between the States, which imply no grant of 
 power whatever to the Federal Government. The 
 whole question is, does the clause relating to fugi- 
 tives from labor, belong to that class of clauses ichich 
 give power to the General Government, or is it simply 
 a dau.se of compact between the Slates? That is the 
 question. 
 
 Well, now, sir, the Continental -Congress re- 
 solved, on the 11th of June, 17T6, to appoint a 
 Committee of one from each Colony to report arti- 
 cles of confederation. The next day the commit- 
 tee was appointed, and Samuel Adams, of Mas- 
 sachusetts, was the member from that State, upon 
 it. On the 13th of July, 1T7G, a little more than 
 a month afterwards, this committee reported the 
 articles, which were debated, from time to time, 
 and adopted by Congress on the 15th of Novem- 
 ber, 1777. They were ratified by the States, one 
 after another, until Maryland, the last on the list, 
 acted upon them on the 1st of March, 17S1. 
 
 The first article establishes the style of the Con- 
 federacy — it shall be "The United States of Amer- 
 ica." The second article is the key to the whole; 
 and is therefore very important to be considered. 
 It determines that the government to be estab- 
 lished for the management of the general interests 
 of the United States, shall be strictly held, and 
 Confined within the limits of powers expressly 
 granted by the act of confederation. It is in these 
 words: " Each State mains its sovereignty, free- 
 •dom, and independence, and every power, juris- 
 diction, and right, which is not, by this Confed- 
 'eration, EXPRESSLY DELEGATED to the 
 • United Stales in Congress assembled." 
 
 No implied powers there I " Expressly dele-- 
 gated." This, I say, is the corner-stone of the 
 whole system of the Confederation — State-right3 
 jealously preserved; a few powers clearly defined 
 are granted to a Congress, which is sternly pro- 
 hibited at the outset, by the first fundamental 
 regulations of its existence, from assuming any 
 scintilla of power not so granted. 
 
 There can be no difficulty, then, in ascertaining 
 what powers belonged to the Congress under the 
 Confederation. We have only to read the enu- 
 meration, and we shall find them all expressly dele- 
 gated; none others existed. 
 
 Let us proceed, then, with our examination of 
 the several " Articles of Confederation and Per- 
 petual Union." 
 
 Ry the third article, the said States "severally 
 enter into a firm league of friendship;" but no 
 power is granted to Congress. 
 
 By the fourth article, the free inhabitants of 
 each State, except paupers, vagabonds, and fugi- 
 tives from justice, are " entitled to all privileges and , 
 immunities of free citizens in the several Slates;" but 
 no grant of power is connected with this particular 
 provision of the compact. 
 
 A second clause of the same article is in these 
 words: "If any person guilty of, or charged ivith, 
 ' treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor, in 
 * any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in 
 ' any of the United States, he shall, upon demand 
 ' of the Governor or executive officer of the State 
 'from which he fled, 6f delivered up, and removed 
 ' to the State having jurisdiction of his offense." 
 The power to deliver up the person guilty, or 
 charged, is not " expressly delegated to the United 
 States," but " each State retains " that power, as 
 entire, and unimpaired, and unquestioned, and 
 unquestionable, as if the Confederation had never 
 been brought into existence. 
 
 A third clause of the same article is in these 
 words: " Full faith and credit shall be given in 
 ' each of these States, to the records, acts, and 
 ' judicial proceedings, of the courts and magistrates 
 'of every other State." The Congress bad no 
 power to enforce, or to regulate, this stipulation 
 of the compact. Each State retained unimpaired, 
 and unquestioned, all and " every power, juris- 
 diction, and right," over the manner in which this 
 agreement should be performed, and the effect of 
 that performance. 
 
 Now, the substance of this fourth article of 
 Confederation — the substance of each of the three 
 clauses of this fourth article— has found its way 
 into the Constitution of the United States, consti- 
 tuting, together with certain additional provisions 
 to be considered by-and-by, the first and second 
 sections of the fourth article of that instru- 
 ment. 
 
 How came these agreements of the old compact 
 of 1777 into the Federal Constitution of the 17th. 
 of Septtmber, 1787? What changes have they 
 undergone in passing there? What effect and 
 force, in their present form, do they now carry with 
 them? Are they, by any means, transformed from 
 mutual stipulations between contracting parties, 
 into giants' of power, by parties surrendering what 
 they had retained and reserved to themselves for 
 ten years, to a new administration of thepowerai 
 jurisdiction, and rights, in this behalf, then for the 
 first time delegated to the United States? 
 
 if so, how, when, why, by whom, by what apt 
 words to express the transformation of these mu- 
 tual covenants into delegations of power, was this 
 
new grant first made, and where in the record, do 
 you find it written down? 
 
 We will trace the subsequent history of these 
 stipulations of the old Confederacy, and examine, 
 first, the process to which they have been sub- 
 jected, the changes resulting from it, and the ad- 
 ditions they have received, and when we have 
 sufficiently considered the clauses by themselves, 
 we will inquire whether they are affected by their 
 relation to other parts of the same instrument, and 
 whether any different rule of construction is to be 
 applied to interpret them, so as entirely to change 
 their character. 
 
 It does not appear that any complaint was made 
 of the non-performance of either of these three 
 stipulations by any State, either in the Conti- 
 nental Congress during the ten years that followed 
 the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, or 
 in the Constitution Convention during its whole 
 session, or that any apprehension of such non- 
 performance in future was expressed from any 
 quarter. Nor does it appear that any objection 
 was raised against the clause concerning the faith 
 due to public records, or that concerning fugitives 
 from justice. 
 
 It was, however, as it would appear, repugnant 
 to the sentiments of South Carolina to guarantee ' 
 all the privileges of free citizens of her own State 
 to the colored free inhabitants of other States. On ' 
 the 25th of June, 1778, South Carolina accordingly 
 moved to insert the word " white" in article fourth, i 
 clause first, between the words" free inhabitants." > 
 
 On this proposition the States voted — ayes 2, I 
 noes 8, divided 1; and the motion was rejected;! 
 the two ayes were South Carolina and Georgia. 
 
 South Carolina moved, after the words " sev- i 
 eral States," to insert " according to the law of 
 such States respectively, for the government of, 
 their own free white inhabitants." On which mo- j 
 tion the ayes were 2, the noes 8, divided 1; and it 
 was rejected. 
 
 South Carolina was unable to repeal that clause 
 of the old Confederation, or prevent its passing into 
 the new Constitution. But she has found a very 
 convenient way of escaping its consequences since 
 that time, and calls upon other States to fulfill their 
 agreements in these articles of compact, a portion 
 of which, understanding it perfectly well, as she 
 showed by trying to change it, she still goes on 
 coolly and deliberately, and habitually, and perse- 
 veringly to violate. 
 
 No other change seems to have been suggested 
 in either of these clauses in the Continental Con- 
 gress during the whole period often years. 
 
 On the 21st of February, 1787, a grand commit- 
 tee, of which the Hon. Nathan Dane, of Beverly, 
 Massachusetts, was chairman, recommended a 
 meeting of delegates from each State to revise the 
 Articles of Confederation. On the motion of the 
 delegates from Massachusetts, it was resolved to 
 call a convention for that purpose, to meet at 
 Philadelphia on the second Monday in May. 
 
 Sundry members met on that day, May 14th, 
 17S7, but the Convention did not elect their presi- 
 dent, George Washington, until the 25th. On 
 Monday, the 28th, they adopted their rules and 
 orders, and on the 29th, they proceeded to busi- 
 ness. On that day, Charles Pinckney, of South 
 Carolina, submitted a draft of a constitution, 
 which became the basis of the further action of 
 the Convention. 
 
 In this draft, the twelfth and thirteenth articles 
 were as follows: 
 
 "Art. XII. The citizens of each State shall be entitled 
 to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 States. Any person Charged with crimes in any Stale flee- 
 ing from justice to another, shall, on demand of the Exec- 
 utive of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, and 
 removed to the Stale having jurisdiction of the offense. 
 
 " Art. XIII. Full faith shall be given, in eaeii Slate, to 
 the acta of the Legislature, and to the records and judicial 
 proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every State." 
 There is no reason to suspect, therefore, that it 
 had occurred to South Carolina at that time to 
 convert either of these clauses into a grant of 
 power, or to insert among them any provision for 
 the case of fugitives from service. Neither of 
 these changes had been thought of either by South 
 Carolina or, so far as we know, by any other 
 State. That these clauses, as they stood in the 
 Articles of Confederation, were so far satisfactory 
 to all sections and to all parties as not to be among 
 those provisions of the compact which it was de- 
 sired to revise, and which the Convention had come 
 together expressly to reform, seems to be quite 
 evident, not only from the facts already stated, 
 but also from the circumstance that in the six other 
 plans submitted to the Constitution Convention, 
 in the form of resolutions, imbodying the views 
 of leading statesmen, and of the different parties 
 struggling to mould the new institutions upon 
 principles in some respects widely diverse from 
 each other, neither the faith due to public records, 
 nor the immunities mutually pledged to citizens, 
 nor the extradition of fugitives from justice, nor 
 the extradition of fugitives from labor, is so much 
 as once alluded to. "Yet the very object of all of 
 these resolutions was to bring forward and pre- 
 sent for discussion the views of their authors upon 
 all the disputed points involved in the mission of 
 the Convention. The plans to which I refer were 
 Edmund Randolph's fifteen propositions, presented 
 May 29th; Mr. Patterson's eleven propositions, 
 presented June 15th; Colonel Hamilton's plan in 
 eleven propositions, presented June 18th; Ran- 
 dolph's plan as amended, and again submitted 
 in Committee of the Whole, in nineteen resolu- 
 tions, June 19th; the report of the committee 
 of detail on the twenty-three resolutions, July 
 26th; the report of the Committee of Eleven, 
 made September 4th, and for several days after- 
 wards. Neither of these plans contains any allu- 
 sion to the question of fugitives from service, now 
 insanely imagined by the fanatics of slave-worship 
 to have been one of the leading " compromises of 
 the Constitution" — a thing which no man in the 
 convention which formed the Constitution dreamt 
 of until it was suggested in another assembly, and 
 upon another occasion, and for another purpose. 
 On the 18th of June, the same day in which he 
 submitted his plan, Mr. Hamilton read, as part 
 of his great speech, his complete draft of a consti- 
 tution, in which the clauses already given from 
 Pinckney 's draft reappear in the following shape: 
 " Art. IX.— Sec. 5. The citizens of each State shall be 
 entitled to the rights, privileges, anil immunities of citizen? 
 in every other State ; and full faith and credit shall be 
 given in each Stale to the public acts, records, and judicial 
 proceedings of another. 
 
 "Sec tj. Fugitives from justice from one State, who 
 shall be found in another, shall he delivered up on the ap- 
 plication ot the State from which they fled." 
 
 This draft of Mr. Hamilton is a carefully-fin- 
 ished production, carried out into all the minute 
 details, and giving the author's matured opinions 
 what the Constitution ought to be in every one of 
 its provisions. This gentleman represented the 
 ultra federal, consolidation, monarchical tenden- 
 cies of the Convention more fully and frankly than 
 
6 
 
 any other member; and was most desirious to 
 multiply and extend grants of power to the Fed- 
 eral Government. He carried this notion so far 
 aa to desire that the legislation of each State 
 should he controlled by the United States; and to 
 effect this object, in the tenth of the resolutions 
 offered by him on the 18th of June, he proposed 
 that the Governor of each State should be appoint- 
 ed by the General Government, and have a veto 
 upon all laws about to be passed in the State of 
 which he was Governor. This, with his President 
 and Senate for life, as proposed in the same reso- 
 lutions, would have constituted a consolidated 
 monarchy. 
 
 Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, was 
 the champion of the sectional slave interest, and 
 he also declared, in the debate on the 23d of Au- 
 gust, that he thought the State Executive should 
 be appointed by the General Government, and 
 have a control over the State laws by means of a 
 veto. Neither Mr. Hamilton, nor any other 
 friend of the Northern monarchical interest, nor 
 Mr. Pinckney, nor any other Southern friend of 
 the sectional slave interest, had suggested in their 
 drafts, or resolutions, or speeches, or in any other 
 way; still less had any friend of Democratic free- 
 dom and State-rights suggested, before the 28th 
 of August, to give Congress any power over either 
 of the three subjects of compact, viz: credit due to 
 records, immunities of citizens, and fugitives /rom 
 justice; nor had any one alluded in the Convention 
 to the subject of fugitives from service. On the 6th 
 of August, about a month after theprincipal com- 
 promises had been settled, and the difficulties sur- 
 mounted, a committee of five — of which John 
 Rutledge, of South Carolina, was chairman — re- 
 ported a constitution entire, a printed copy being 
 handed on the same day to each member. In their 
 report, the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth ar- 
 ticles are as follows: 
 
 " Art. XtV. The citizens of each Plate shall be entitled 
 to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 States. 
 
 "Art. XV. Any person chared with treason, felony, 
 or high misdemeanor in any Stat », who shall nVefrom jus- 
 tice, and shall be found in any other State, shall, on demand 
 of the Executive power of the State from which he fled, he 
 delivered up, and removed to the State having jurisdiction 
 of the offense. 
 
 "Art. XVI. Full faith shall be given in each State to 
 the acts of the Legislature, and to the records and judicial 
 proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other 
 State.' 
 
 On the 28th of August these paragraphs came 
 up in order for consideration. Article fourteen 
 was taken up. General Pinckney (Charles Cotes- 
 worth Pinckney) was not satisfied with it. He 
 seemed to wish some provision should be included 
 in favor of property in slaves. Article fourteen 
 was adopted — ayes 9, no (South Carolina) 1, 
 divided (Georgia) 1. Article fifteen, the words 
 "high misdemeanor" were struck out, and " other 
 crime" inserted. Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney, 
 (Mr. C. Pinckney,) both of South Carolina, 
 moved to require " fugitive slaves and servants to 
 be delivered up like criminals." Mr. Wilson, of 
 Pennsylvania, said, " this would oblige the Ex- 
 ecutive of the State to do it at the public 
 expense." Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, saw 
 no more propriety in the public seizing and sur- 
 rendering a slave, or .servant, than a horse. Mr. 
 Butler does not object to either objection; but lie 
 undertakes to change his proposition " Pie with- 
 drew his proposition, in order that some particular 
 
 provision might be made apart from this article." 
 Article fifteen was then adopted "unanimously. 
 
 Thus far there is no indication of any intent to 
 make a grant of power. Butler's motion to require 
 slaves to be delivered up, was to "require" the 
 States to do it — not to empower Congress to do 
 it; or rather, to authorize theNATio.vAL Execu- 
 tive to do it. Wilson's objection shows this 
 understanding: it would oblige the Executive of 
 the State to do it at the public expense, as 
 happens when one State demands from another a 
 fugitive from justice. Sherman thought the pub- 
 lic had no more cause to seize a slave than a 
 horse. How did Butler propose to obviate this 
 objection? Was it by transferring the duty and 
 expense from the lesser public, the State, to that 
 greater public, the United States ? It was by giv- 
 ing to the master the same authority to recover 
 his servant' that he had already to recover his 
 horse; and it goes no further. A Virginian horse 
 would be property in Pennsylvania. A Virginian 
 negro held to service, might not be property in 
 Pennsylvania. The Constitution stipulates that 
 the character of property attaching to him before 
 his escape, shall cause to attach to him in any 
 State to which he may flee, whatever may be the 
 laws of that State, a right of reclamation A horse 
 so escapingmust be delivered up; so also must be 
 a fiiffitive from labor. And that is all. 
 
 When gentlemen imagine that the Constitution 
 has attributed to the negro held to service — to that 
 description of property — the character of sacred- 
 ness that does not attach to any other property 
 whatever, they misread the Constitution, and mis- 
 judge the men who framed it. Than have done 
 what you impute to them, some of them would 
 sooner have had their right hands cut off: yet the 
 clause, as it now stands, passed unanimously. The 
 strict attention of very sharp intellects was drawn 
 to this very question which I havebeen discussing. 
 in that Convention, and they settled it with their 
 eyes wide open, and as I have; as I will prove to 
 this committee. Artielesixteenth of the draft was 
 that concerning public faith in the acts of the Legis- 
 latures and records, and judicial proceedings of 
 the courts and magistrates of the several States. 
 That was the last in this series of compacts. What 
 did the Convention do with it? 
 
 August 29, Mr. Williamson (of North Caro- 
 lina) moved to substitute in place of article 16th, 
 "the words of the Articles of Confederation on the 
 same subject. He did not understand precisely 
 the meaning of the article." Mr. Wilson and 
 Dr. Johnson said it meant " that judgments in one 
 ' State should be the ground of actions in other 
 « States; and that acts of the Legislature should be 
 ' included, for the sake of acts of insolvency." 
 
 Mr. Pinckney moved to commit it, with a mo- 
 tion for a power to pass bankrupt laws, and to 
 regulate damages on protested bills of exchange. 
 Mr. Madison favored the commitment, and wished 
 a power to be given to Congress "to provide for 
 the execution of judgments in other States. He 
 thought this might be safely done." Mr. Ran- 
 dolph thought there was no instance under heaven 
 of one. nation executing the judgments of another. 
 He had not been graduated in the modern Virginia 
 consolidation school. Gouvernenr Morris moved 
 to commit also a motion to give to Congress power 
 " to determine the proof and effect of such acts, 
 records, and proceedings." Nobody dreamed that 
 there teas a power in the article already. Mani 
 thought one should be inserted. It was committed. 
 
It became the opinion of the majority that they || altered, giving the power to Congress. Mr. Pierce 
 
 Butler, General Pinckney, and Mr. C. Pinckney, 
 the three otlier members from South Carolina — 
 for there were but four in all — had, each of them, had 
 his attention called to this subject on the very day 
 before that on which the committee was appointed, 
 they had, each of them, alluded to it in the Con- 
 vention, and nobody else had done so, in the de- 
 bate of August 28th. Three members from South 
 Carolina— each having his attention specially called 
 to the subject of fugitives from labor, on the 28th 
 of August — that subject brought up again on the 
 29th. John Rutledge was chairman of the com- 
 mittee of five, appointed on the 29th, when Mr. 
 Butler moves the clause of fugitives from labor, 
 and that committee of five, who reported this 
 clause on the first of September, took the ground 
 that the power to legislate on the proof and effect 
 of public acts, must be expressly granted. On the 
 3d of September another debate took place, on 
 granting this power, in which Madison, Gouver- 
 neur Morris, Colonel Mason, Mr. Wilson, Dr. 
 Johnson, and Mr. Randolph participated, with 
 various views. No one suggests that the clause 
 will give a power, although" none be expressed. 
 The doctrine of implied powers had not then been 
 strained so far. No onesuggests a power over fugi- 
 tives from labor. Slaveocracy had not then ven- 
 tured so far. It would have been rejected at once, 
 But the clause as it stands passed unanimously. 
 
 Does it not make a clear case? I would like ro 
 see those profound lawyers of New Hampshire, 
 or Virginia, or anywhere else, show us how the 
 power was put into this clause of fugitives from 
 labor, which was not originally there; and who 
 put it there; and where, and how Roger Sherman 
 and Elbridge Gerry were induced to put it there. 
 John Rutledge put it there, in the clause of faith 
 and credit to records; but he did not put it into 
 the otlier clause. He had a reason for putting it 
 in the one clause, and he had a reason for omitting 
 it in the other clause. When Colonel Mason, on 
 the 22d of August, only a week before this clause 
 was unanimously adopted, told the world that 
 " every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. 
 ' They bring the judgment of Heaven on a coun- 
 treads the face of the globe/so carefully consid- II ' try. If nations cannot be rewarded or punished 
 ered in the eifect of every word, as the Constitu- |j ' in the next world, they must be in this, by an 
 tion of the United States. When the constitu- ' inevitable chain of causes and ettects, Providence 
 tional Convention saw they had not made a grant 'punishes national sins by national calamities. 
 
 ii # * # " He held it essential, m every point of 
 
 had better attach to the compact a clause giving 
 power to Congress over that subject, the faith to 
 be given to records. 
 
 John Rutledge, of South Carolina, was the 
 chairman of the committee to which these clauses 
 were referred to make the change. They took the 
 clause which stood last in order and transferred it 
 to the head of the list, where it now stands, attach- 
 ing to it power to Congress to act upon the sub- 
 ject. There it stands. Were these men so sim- 
 ple as not to know whether a grant of power was 
 necessary to be added, in express words, to ena- 
 ble Congress to determine the effect of public acts, 
 records, &c, in another State? Congress had the 
 power already, as the article stood, if they have 
 any power under either of the other clauses over 
 fugitives from labor, or over either of the other 
 subjects of either of these clauses of compact. But 
 so thought not John Rutledge, of South Carolina, 
 who reported the grant of power; James Madison, 
 of Virginia, who desired a grant of power, and fa- 
 vored a commitment for that purpose; Gouverneur 
 Morris, a high-toned Federalist, who could find 
 constructive powers wherever Hamilton could 
 find them, but could find none here, and therefore 
 asked for an express grant. All these clauses 
 were in the Confederation originally, and articles 
 of compact there, and nobody had ever pretended 
 that they were anything else there. All the four 
 clauses are still in their language, in terms, in their 
 obvious — one might almost say, in their only pos- 
 sible construction, articles of compact. Still, it is 
 agreed to attach to one of them a grant of power, 
 and not to the other three. The Convention takes 
 out that fourth clause, makes it the first, and says 
 Congress shall have power to determine the effect to 
 be given to the public records of the States. 
 Where did Congress get that power from, in 
 either of the other clauses of compact where it is 
 not given ? Why did Congress have that power 
 given to them by express words in that clause, if 
 the Government had it already in all these clauses, 
 as they must, ifthexj had it in either ? These were 
 not men to waste words. There is not a doc- 
 ument in the language of any human race which 
 
 of power in either of these four clauses, and came 
 to the conclusion that they had better make it as to 
 one of them; they knew what to do. They 
 picked out that clause, put it at the head of the ar- 
 ticle, and said Congress shall have power to deter- 
 mine, by law, what shall be the effect given to 
 public records. Why did they pot say: "Con- 
 gress SHALL HAVE POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE 
 RENDITION OF FUGITIVES FROM LABOR?'' 
 
 That is what they would have said had they so 
 
 meant. They did not so mean, and therefore they 
 
 did not say it. And this is the only reason which 
 
 the ingenuity of man can divine for the omission 
 
 to express a grant of power in this clause of a , 
 
 Constitution, which grants no powers except those \ Henry, George Washington George Mason, and 
 
 •riven in so many words, or those which, being i other Abolitionists of that clay-to use the word 
 
 as we hear it used every day in Congress— im- 
 agined that a provision so abhorrent to their gen- 
 al views hud been inserted in the Constitution, 
 
 vieic, that the General Government should /tare 
 
 1 VOWer TO PREVENTTHE INCREASE OF SLAVERY 
 
 When that far-seeing Virginian, who seems to 
 have anticipated the history of Virginia in the 
 nineteenth century, uttered these memorable words 
 in the Convention, do you suppose that he was 
 contriving a Government to be used as a great 
 neo-ro-catching machine, and that should be good 
 for" nothing else— to be broken up the moment it 
 ceased to perform that function, as seems now to 
 be the prevailing opinion among the demagogues 
 of both parties? Do you suppose for a moment 
 that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick 
 
 subsidiary in their nature, are essential to the car- 
 rying into exercise of powers granted in so many 
 words. Where they desired a power, the clause 
 
 was changed. Who made that change' Was j' and did not make it the subject of indignant com- 
 this a cunning devise of Northern men? John || ment in the Convention or out of the Convention 
 Rutledge was chairman of the committee appointed Mr. Madison would not suffer the black ana 
 on the'29th of August, that reported that clause as \\ odious name of slave to be named in tne Oons.i- 
 
8 
 
 tution. Is it conceivable that he meant to enroll 
 the hunting-down of the fugitive slave among the 
 highest duties of the Government founded under 
 that Constitution, as our present Administration 
 esteems it to be? 
 
 Are we to believe that one half of the Conven- 
 tion, beiii'j: honest and firm men, belied all the 
 instincts of their hearts, all the prejudices, if you 
 choose so to phrase it, of their education, all that 
 devotion to the principles of liberty in the abstract, 
 which the Revolution had developed, and made 
 themselves parties, without a particle of induce- 
 ment held out to them, without a word of remon- 
 strance from one of them, to an eternal national 
 slave hunt? Are we to believe this, not only with- 
 out evidence, but against all the evidences? Let me 
 remark upon the strangeness of this fact. Among 
 the thousand letters which were written by lead- 
 ing members of the Constitution Convention, or 
 of the State Conventions at the South, and at 
 the North, never was there anything produced 
 that would lead one to suppose for a moment 
 that the Convention, or any man in it, or any man 
 out of it, in the year 1787, suspected that the clause 
 relative to fugitives from labor, contained a grant 
 of power. 
 
 Not a solitary letter, speech, journal, memoran- 
 dum, or record, of any description has been 
 brought forward, which contains the explanation j 
 which is now put upon this clause for the pur- ; 
 pose of impairing State rights — helping to build ' 
 up a consolidated system of Government, which ' 
 is centralizing' power, and growing stronger and j 
 stronger every day and every hour, without cast- j 
 ing into the vortex to be swallowed up in the Fed- ' 
 eral maelstrom, the State institution of slavery ! 
 
 Do the Southern gentlemen know what they j 
 are doing? Do you mean to throw the whole 
 power over the subject of slavery into the hands I 
 of the Federal Government? You do it here. 
 
 Do gentlemen desire that two thirds of the white 
 men of the country — aye, a great many more than 
 two thirds very soon, for by the next census we 
 shall have at least twenty-one millions of white! 
 people at the North, and nine millions, at the ut- 
 most, at the South— do gentlemen desire that those i 
 twenty-one millions of people should take this i 
 subject of slavery into their hands — to let it agi- j 
 tate, and agitate, and convulse the whole nation, ' 
 until it shall finally be treated, as it will be treated, 
 if it becomes the fuel of a universal conflagration 
 through this land? Let Southern statesmen take 
 warning in this matter. I desire to stand upon 
 the Constitution, your only rock of safety, in this 
 terrible future, glimpses of which are opening upon j 
 us — to stand there, because I think I can stand 
 there safely, and nowhere else. 
 
 When I said that John Rutledge, of South 
 Carolina, was the man who reported the grant of 
 power in the one clause, but that he did not report 
 any such grant in the other clause, 1 had not ex- 
 hausted the argument. The clauses underwent 
 another scrutiny; they passed another ordeal. 
 This matter was committed to a committee of 
 eleven for revision. It came back in essentially 
 the same shape. Who was upon the committee 
 of revision? Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of 
 
 South Carolina, was one of that committee of 
 eleven. His attention had been drawn to this 
 subject, the reclamation of fugitive slaves, for he 
 had not only taken part in the discussion of the 
 subject on the 28th, but he was the individual 
 member who first introduced it to the notice of 
 the Convention. If he wanted a grant of power, 
 he knew how it was to be expressed, for the 
 clause in which the grant of power was inserted 
 on the same day thai the fugitive from labor clause 
 icas adopted, was also before that committee. 
 James Madison, a sound and a keen constitu- 
 tional lawyer, was one of that committee. Lu- 
 ther Martin, of Maryland, was also of that com- 
 mittee. If ever there was a strict constructionist, 
 Luther Martin was one; and he also, as well as 
 Mr. Madison, was a sound constitutional lawyer, 
 as the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Bayly,] 
 who reviewed this matter the other day, will 
 allow. If the committee intended a grant of 
 power, would Luther Martin have left it to be 
 implied, and that, too, in such a manner that it 
 requires your optics to be sharpened by a judicial 
 decision to discover the implication? 
 
 Williamson, of North Carolina, was also of 
 that committee. Here were men who would look 
 to the interests of the South, and if they meant a 
 grant of power, express a grant of power. Why 
 did they not do it? Why did they not put it 
 there? They have not put it there. Perhapsthey 
 did not want it; perhaps they wanted the power, 
 but knew they could not have it. One or the other 
 is the natural and true interpretation. Thisclause 
 came from the ordinance of 1787, passed by the 
 Congress of the Confederation — a clause that there 
 should be no slavery northwest of the Ohio, and 
 that a fugitive flying from labor into that territory 
 should be delivered up. 
 
 That was a compact, and that compact we could 
 not fail to understand. It contained no grant of 
 power. It is not materially changed as to this 
 point. Trace out its history; it is easy to find 
 what that compact was, and whence it came. It 
 was copied from an old New England compact, 
 made in the year 1G42, between Massachusetts 
 Bayand her neighbor colonies. Afterwards, sub- 
 stantially, the same compact was renewed, and 
 extended a little further, but granting no power — 
 simply an agreement to return each other's run- 
 away servants. This is the whole history of it. 
 Nathan Dane copied a familiar provision of New 
 England policy from those old contracts into the 
 ordinance, which made the whole Northwest free 
 son. forever. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson in 1784 attempted to make all 
 the territory then belonging to the United States 
 free soil. He attempted to exclude slavery by an 
 organic ordinance from Alabama and Mississippi, 
 and all the Southwest, as well as the Northwest. 
 It was defeated by the vote of Mr. Spaight, of the 
 State of North Carolina. If Spaight had been a 
 Jeffersonian Democrat that day, there would have 
 been no slavery west of the Alleghanies. Mr. Jef- 
 ferson proposed to exclude slavery, but did not 
 provide for the rendition of fugitive slaves. That 
 was Thomas Jefferson's plan in 1784. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 
 
,^s$p- 
 
 
 v 
 
 A* 
 
 
 *'* .1. 
 
 ■*V* A< v^^V* %/^^V* *v^*V* 
 
 
 4 V ^ 
 
 
 
 ♦ 4* ^ *«^R^«* ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ ^^>» ^ 
 
 
 
 -^^