SML Cb8251

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.

SPEECH or
HON. ROBERT RANTOUL, JR., OF BEVERLY, MASS.,
DELIVERED BEFORE
THE GRAND MASS CONVENTION
OP THE
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS OF THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
HOLDEN AT LYNN, THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 1851.
Phonographic Retort bt I) e . James W. Stone.

Pursuant to a call from the District Committee, a very large and highly]
respectable meeting of the Democracy of the Second Congressional District,!
including the most active and efficient supporters of Democratic principles, for!
the last twenty years, in almost every town in the District, assembled at Lyce-'
um Hall, Lynn, on the afternoon of the 3d of April, for the purpose of consultation!
with reference to the election ordered for the following Monday. ,
The meeting was called to order at half past two o'clock, and the Hon. Feed-,
eeick Robinson, of Marblehead, formerly President of the Senate of Massachu
setts, was chosen President of the Convention.
Edward Pousland, Esq., of Beverly, Hon. James M. Usher of Medfprd,
Hon. Geoege W. Dike of Stoneham, William W. Boardman of Saugus,
Benjamin Hathaway of Marblehead, Dr. G. B. Loring of Chelsea,
A. D. Wait of Ipswich, Joseph Haines of Lynn,
Henry Derby of Salem, Norman Story of Essex,
Ebenezer H. Stacy of Gloucester, Addison Gott of Rockport, and
C. Estes of Danvers, were chosen Vice Presidents ; and
P. L. Cox, of Lynn, Francis A. Smith of Marblehead, and
Henry Lane of Lynn, were chosen Secretaries.
The Hon. Mr. Robinson, on taking the chair, in an animated address, enforced
upon his hearers the necessity of recurring to those fundamental principles
of human rights on which our free institutions are established, and which it has
for sixty years been the proudest boast of the Democratic Party, that they

tiave defended with unwavering fidelity, and cherished with peculiae zeal. The
unanimous applause with which his remarks were received, showed plainly that
the faith of Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Elbridge Gerry, though it may
be extinct in the metropolis of New England, still lives and burns in the hearts of
the Country Democracy.
When the often repeated bursts of applause which followed Mr. Robinson's appeal
for freedom had subsided, Joseph Haines, Esq., of Lynn, presented for the
consideration of the Convention the following resolutions : —
Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States has not conferred upon Congress
the power to enact any law authorizing officers of the United States to determine the slavery
)r freedom of persons found within the territory of any State, and to convey them out of
the State wherein they are found, to be held as slaves in another State.
Resolved, That no person in any State of this Union can be lawfully deprived of his
iberty without due process of law ; which process, in the case of an alleged fugitive from
iervice, is a suit at common law ; wherein the fact, whether said fugitive was lawfully held
;o service, in the State from which he is alleged to have escaped, shall be determined by
t trial by jury.
Resolved, That such trial by jury should precede the delivery, into the hands of the
party claiming him, of such alleged fugitive, and should be had in the vicinity where the
jaid alleged fugitive is found.
Resolved, That in the determination of the question of liberty, all presumptions of law
and fact, are, and ought to be, in favor of liberty.
Resolved, That the fugitive slave law enacted by the Congress lately expired, contraven
ing these principles, is unjust, unconstitutional, in derogation of the fundamental maxims of
free government, and ought to be speedily and for ever repealed.
i The reading of the resolutions was interrupted frequently with demonstrations
of approval, and after being read they were laid before the meeting for discussion.
The President introduced Mr. Rantoul, who was received with great enthusiasm,
md preliminary to commencing his speech re-read the aforesaid resolutions, and
proceeded.

SPEECH.

HON. ROBERT RANTOUL, JR

Mr. President, the Convention which I
now have the honor to address, was called, as I
suppose, at my suggestion. The reason why
I desired of the District Committee of this dis
trict thatethe Democratic voters of this district
should be called together, and that I might
have an opportunity to address them, was one
which I think will meet the approbation of
pou all. It was, that since the period when
[ was first nominated to represent this district
n Congress.a very material change has taken
Dlace in the condition of affairs. One change

was this. I have had the honor to be nomi
nated for Congress again and again, when I
supposed there were very few persons who
believed there was any probability of my
election. A law has now been passed which
makes it certain that some person must be
elected to represent this district in Congress.
It is called the Plurality Law. Therefore,
as we now know we are not to pass through
trials without end, but either at the election
on Monday next, or on the succeeding one,
some person will be elected, it therefore be-

comes a different question as to what ought
to be done.
There has also been a change with regard
to other great questions. The great question
of slavery has now assumed a particular
shape, concerning which it is now necessary
to declare an opinion. So long as that ques
tion was floating in uncertainty, so long as it
was connected with subjects which wore
changing day by day, it might not be desir
able that a public man should state his opin
ions. But at last this question has assumed
a definite shape. It has presented a distinct
issue, an issue reaching back to fundamental
principles. And I did in my conscience sup
pose, that the Democratic voters would desire
to hear from me, before they should deposit
their votes at the election of Monday next.
Supposing that all the Democratic voters
desired to be acquainted with the views of
their candidate, one of two courses was neces
sary to be adopted ; either in writing to pre
sent my views to the citizens of this District,
or to invite the Democratic voters to come
together and meet me face to face. I have
preferred the latter, because lean speak more
freely than I can write, (though that is a per
sonal consideration,) and because if I address
my fellow citizens here, those who wish to
hear me can come, and those who do not wish
to hear me can stay away.
I am now ready to proceed to make an ex
act statement of my opinions — a statement so
unequivocal that there shall be no mistake
about it. I intend to make a distinct and
unequivocal definition of my ideas of what
seems to be the most important issue now be
fore the country. [Cheers.] And when I
have done so, for I want to lay down a dis
tinct proposition upon this subject, I shall then
say to my friends of the democratic party, who
arc here present, Gentlemen, you have sup
ported me as your candidate through a good
many trials. It has come to my ears lately
that there are some persons who claim to be
long to the democratic party who would not
be satisfied if I made such declarations as I
now intend to make. I desire that if there
be such gentlemen present they may have an
opportunity to show themselves, and to de
clare their purposes, and, if they constitute a
majority of the democratic party, that they
may substitute some other candidate in my
stead. If the democratic party here present,
after having heard the views which I shall
express on this subject, shall choose to make
any other arrangement than the present, with
regard to the Congressional election, either

for the reason that I have suggested, or for^
any other reason, for any grounds, I care not1
what, then I shall only have to thank them,
for past favors, and go into the battle as aj
private soldier. [Applause.] ,
In explaining one's ideas before the people,)
it seems to have become quite the fashion, ofj
late, to go back so far as to swear fealty to the:
Constitution and the Union. I will follow^
that fashion. I am attached, and as devoted-8
ly attached as any other man, to the Union of
these States, and to the Constitution of our
government. I believe the Union to be at
the bottom of almost all the other political1
blessings that we enjoy. I believe the Con-f
stitution to be — not perfect, as nothing pro-j
ceeding from human hands is perfect — but as;
nearly and as reasonably perfect as could have-
been expected at the time it was made, as could;
be expected if it were made now, and even.
better than if we were to make it over again
But when I say that I admire and lovi
both the Union and the Constitution, it is be-,
cause of that which they secure to us. Tha
Union is great, I might almost say, it is the
greatest of our political blessings, because itj
secures to us what was the object of tha
Union. And the Constitution is good, ancf
great, and valuable, and to be held for ever.
sacred, because it secures to us what was thet
object of the Constitution. And what is that I
Liberty ! And if it were not for that, thq
Union would be valueless, and the Constitu-T
tion would not be worth the parchment upon^
which it is written. [" Hear ! hear !"] '
Why do we value the Union ? Because it
secures our national independence and the|
independence of the several States ; because-'
without it, there would exist a number of
petty States, which would be, as they are hr"
Europe, exposed to perpetual wars with;
each other and with their neighbors. We
should be obliged to keep up a standing'
army, and should be quarrelling with each
other, as the petty German States have done!
for ages. With all that, your national inde-'
pendence would be, if preserved, continually!
in hazard, but most probably could not evenl
be preserved. And out of that condition ofj
things would grow most probably a contest off
small States with great ones ; and the inde4
pendence of the weaker ones would be sacri-S
ficed, while the greater ones would rule overt
them. Against all that, the Union guaran-f
ties us. It guaranties to us independence;'
What is independence ? Have there not
been the most cruel despotisms on earth
which were independent nations ? Our inde-!

.pendence is valuable because it preserves our
iberty ¦ and the Union is great and glorious
because it preserves our independence, and
[hereby our liberty. [Prolonged applause.]
' I love the Union and the Constitution,
then, not for themselves, but for the great
;nd for which they were created ; to secure
fend perpetuate liberty, not the liberty of a
(jlass superimposed upon the thraldom of
groaning multitudes, not the liberty of a
¦uling race cemented by the tears and blood
bf subject races, but human liberty, perfect
liberty, common to all for whom the Union
tind the Constitution were made, to the whole
' people of the United States," and to their
' posterity."
i It is because I believe all this, that I love
,he Union and the Constitution. And if I
lid not believe this, I should go back to my
lilgrim ancestors and take a lesson from
ghem. When they came out from the old
yorld, and left their country which they
oved, and the constitution of Great Britain
yhich they loved, (for they expressed their
ove for it in all their writings, speeches, and
Jeeds,) though they loved their country and
Its constitution, they loved something else
nore than they loved their country. They
bved liberty more. " Patria car a, carior
ibertas." Interwoven with every fibre of
ny heart is the love of my country ; but free-
lom is the charm which endears and conse-
srates her ; and if the spirit of liberty should
ake her flight from my native land, my love
md worship are not due to brute clods and
ocks, to her prairies, or her mountains ; but,
vhere liberty dwells, there is my country ;
here only is my country ! [Great applause.]
Dear to my inmost soul are the Union and the
Constitution ; but God-given liberty is above
ihe Union, and above the Constitution, and
ibove all the works of man. [Long contin
ued cheering.]
' The President. That is the true higher
law. Mr. Rantoul. These ideas are not at all
new with me. They are not taken up on ac
count of any present position of public affairs.
I see before me quite a number of gentlemen
who were present eighteen years ago, when I
had occasion to discuss the value of the Fed
eral Union. I then took the same view of
the value of the Union and the Constitution
that I take now. I valued them then, as I
Value them now, because of their great pur
pose. So long as they accomplish that pur
pose, so long are they the highest political

blessings. And if they ever cease in the
providence of God to accomplish that great
purpose, they become worthless, they may be
come even a curse.
Washington in his invaluable legacy of
practical sagacity, the farewell address, held
the same view of the relations in which the
Union, the Constitution and the great princi
ple of liberty stand to each other. It is
because of our love of liberty that we do
love and ought to love the Union and the
Constitution. He gives to the view which
I have just taken the full sanction of his
mighty name. He declares " The unity
of government which constitutes you one
people " to be "Justly " dear to you, be
cause "it is a main pillar in the edi
fice of your real independence," and " of
that very liberty which you so highly prize."
He tells you that by this Union the several
parts avoid much of the liability to, and the
danger from wars with foreign nations/iand
domestic " broils, and wars between them
selves;" and though last, not least, "the
necessity of those overgrown military estab
lishments, which, under any form of govern
ment, are inauspicious to liberty, and which
are to be regarded as particularly hostile to
republican liberty." " In this sense it is,"
says he, " that your Union ought to be con
sidered as a main prop of your liberty ; and
that the love of the one ought to endear to
you the preservation of the other." It is be
cause I receive into an undoubting heart
these parting lessons of that apostle of liberty,
who was the founder of our Union, and in-
augurator of our Constitution, that I venerate
his work, and cling to it, as to the ark of our
political salvation.
Living in this faith, and desiring to live up
to this faith, I so exhibit my fidelity to the
Union, and so exercise my devotion to the
Constitution, as will best promote the ultimate
purpose of the Union and the Constitution,
the cause of human liberty. Were I know
ingly to swerve from this straight path, but by
the division of a hair, I should be so far false
to the glorious mission of an American citizen,
and to the obvious duty devolving on a Mass
achusetts man. Every son of our ancient
Commonwealth, who swears to support her
institutions, becomes, by that fact, a soldier
sworn upon the altar of freedom. My influ
ence, I know, must be but limited, and my
sphere of acvion humble, but this does not
affect the nature of my obligations. The de
gree of power which a man may be able to put

forth is determined by God in the original
constitution of his faculties. He is justly
deemed responsible only for the tendency in
which they may be directed. The tendency
of my steps this day is to tread the path
our fathers trod, THE PATH OP FREE
DOM AND PROGKESS. My hope and
trust is to hand down to posterity, not only
unimpaired, but strengthened and augmented,
all the safeguards of liberty which, through
many ages of long suffering, the toil of pat
riots earned, and the blood of martyrs
hallowed, and which the fathers of the Amer
ican Revolution died believing that they had
secured for ever. [Prolonged applause.]
It is not any new-fangled doctrine that sets
up the means above the end, and says that
the parchment is the inestimable treasure,
and that the object for which that Constitu
tion was made is to be forgotten ; that the
object which our fathers went through a
seven years' war to accomplish, is to be neg
lected — it is no such new-fangled doctrine
that I maintain. I contend that the Declara
tion of Independence, the Constitution, and
the Union of the United States are valuable,
only as long as the purpose of them is valua
ble. But that these instruments are to be
talked of as if they were intrinsically holy,
and that the purpose which was in the souls
of those that made them, as it should be in
our souls to-day, is not to be spoken of
without incurring the charge of fanaticism or
abolitionism — I go for no such new-fangled
doctrines as those.
Liberty is the object for which govern
ments are founded ; and that government is
best administered where the spirit of liberty
is best preserved. [Cheers.] If then this
be the great object of the Union and the Con
stitution, and that which makes the Union and
the Constitution dear, how is the government
to be administered, how is the Constitution
to be interpreted? There have been two
great schools of politics in this country since
the foundation of our government. To one
of these schools I have always belonged. I
think the maxims of that school essential to
the durability of our institutions. It is not
the expediency of party policy which seems
to me to be involved. Two great fundamen
tal principles as to how the Constitution is to
be interpreted are involved. It is a question
on which parties are now divided, and on
which they always will divide, till the end of
time. Let us look at that question. The Con
stitution of the United States creates a gov

ernment of limited powers. Are they to be"
held strictly to the limitations of that in:'
strument ? or are they to have a system of
loose construction which will transcend those
powers ? That is the great question at the"
sixtjj

bottom of all our party divisions for
years past. '
Now I hold, and have always held, thaf
the Constitution of the United States is aif
instrument which is to be strictly construed :
that the Constitution is the letter of attorne5
by which the members of Congress are avi',
thorized to act, and that they are empowered
to do nothing which it does not authorize
them to do. That is my doctrine, and it v
democratic doctrine. I ask of democrat^
some application of that doctrine. It is thl'
doctrine on which the government stands^
that the Constitution of the United States sj:
to be strictly construed. Nothing is to bf
established by means of unnatural inferences'
Was that the doctrine of those who made thf
Constitution of the United States?
The Constitution of Massachusetts sayS
that the General Court shall make all law|
which are for the benefit of the people whicl
are not forbidden in that instrument. It say
the Legislature shall not take away the trisf,
by jury ; it shall not abolish the habeof
corpus. It forbids that which shall not bl'
done. All else may be done by the Leglslal
ture. This is the Constitution of Massa^
chusetts. The Constitution of the United States, or'
the other hand, says, this thing you may do:; j
that thing you may do ; the other thing yoi j
may do ; and there it stops. To that, the >
government of the United States is to b||
strictly held. To prevent any misappreherf
sion on that subject, let me say that it wa1:
well known that there was one school of poll]
ticians who considered that safety only corjj
sisted in following the example of their pre]
decessors, that is, in following the example cj
Great Britain ; who said that we must have \
strong government, or we should be in thj,
condition of the Germans, the Italians, anil
the Greeks, for a long series of years. Ant]
history seemed to be in their favor. P
I do not wonder at their opinions. The;^
said, " All these Republican experiment
have failed because the governments were ndj
strong enough. You must not make thfl
government too weak." And perhaps ou;
government would not have held together ij
the people had not been more intelligent thari
those of the German States, or if they ha(
been surrounded by strong nations at wa(

^with them. If we had had a nation in
Canada as strong as France, and one in Mex
ico as strong as Great Britain, and should
. have been at war with them, or were con-
'stantly liable to war with them, perhaps our
'government would not have stood. It was
not at that time to be expected that they
Ishould know how the thing would turn out,
(¦because it had never been written in history.
Tbey had seen no great successful republican
government. But it is our own fault if we
tare not wiser by experience. I say that the
'.school of politicians who thought the govern
ment was not strong enough did not intend
to have a strict construction.
- A gentleman once remarked to Alexander
Hamilton, who was one of that school, that
he thought the Constitution was a pretty
good instrument. " It depends," replied
he, "upon how you construe it." He was
in favor of modelling our government some
what after the English form. He thought
ihat the Minister of the Treasury, and of
Foreign Affairs, should step into our House of
Representatives as the Premier of England
enters the House of Commons, and should
there explain the intentions of the government
Jmd the relations of other countries to our
bwn. Then he wanted a public debt, be
cause Great Britain had a debt. He wanted
li Bank as Great Britain had a Bank. And
30 on other points, he wanted the government
is strong as it could be made. It is my
ppinion that he was honest in that view.
1 There was another party who took the
Opposite view. They said, it is true that
bonfederations have broken to pieces ; but
there have also been many governments which
have progressed until they became despotisms.
They laid down the principle that govern
ment should not go one hair's breadth beyond
che powers given to them When the Con
stitution came up for adoption, many States
refused to adopt it, unless there was strong
probability that certain amendments would be
idopted. One of them was thought peculiar
ly important. That amendment was subse
quently adopted, and is now in my hands. It
s the 10th article of the amendments to the
Constitution of the United States :
\ " The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
jt to the States, are reserved to the States
¦espectively, or to the people."
The powers not given are reserved to the
?tates, or to the people. When you ask
ivhether a bill be constitutional or not, the
r t hing to be done is to look into the Con

stitution, and find the express grant therefor.
If it is not there it is reserved to the States or
to the people. That is the democratic doc
trine. [Applause.]
Now was that Massachusetts doctrine ?
Most assuredly it was. Massachusetts had a
good deal of democracy in her in early times.
When old Sam Adams drafted this bill of
rights, there was a good deal of democracy in
him, and a good deal in the people. Here is
the Bill of Rights, drawn up in 1780, showing
what they thought then.
Art. IV. " The people of this Common
wealth have the sole and exclusive right of
governing themselves as a free, sovereign and
independent State ; and do and forever here
after shall exercise and enjoy every power,
jurisdiction and right which is not or may not
hereafter be by them expressly delegated to
the United States of America in Congress
assembled." What do they mean by "expressly del
egated to the United States?" They say
this, in so many words, in language that can
not be mistaken. This is what they meant.
They meant that the Government of the
United States should not then, or thereafter,
assume any power which the States had not
expressly delegated to it. And well would
it have been if that principle of the majority
of the States of the Union had always been
adhered to ; it would have saved us a vast
deal of trouble.
I belong, then, to that school which holds
that the Constitution should be strictly con
strued, and its meaning strictly adhered to.
And when I say this, I have at the same
time a great veneration for all the compro
mises of the Constitution. We hear much of
them. What are they ? I sometimes hear
people talk of the compromises of the Con
stitution in such a way that I think they would
be much puzzled if they were to be asked
what they are. There were compromises,
the non-adoption of which would have pre
vented the Constitution itself from being
adopted by the people. Leading members
even went home in despair of effecting a
Constitution acceptable to the people. And
it was after they had gone, that certain com
promises were adopted, which finally insured
the acceptance of that instrument. What
were they ?
In many confederacies, ancient and mod
ern, all the States entering into the combina
tion had an equal number of votes. The
small States insisted that that was the right
way. They said, we shall be swallowed up

by the larger States unless we can vote by
States as was done in Congress under the
Confederation. I suppose it is well known
to you, that the Convention of States was
called together for the purpose of amending
the old articles of Confederation. They
found, however, that they would not bear
amendment. They scarcely made any at
tempt at amendment, for they ascertained
that it was easier to make a new instrument
than to repair the old one. In the old Con
federation the States were all equal. Del
aware had as large a vote as New York. —
Luther Martin who led off this opposition,
has left an account of it, and of his own ac
tion. The small States refused to come into
the support of a combination, unless they could
have an equal vote. And the convention came
very near breaking up in despair of ever set
tling that distracting question. How did they
finally settle it ? By making this compromise ;
by saying that in one branch the people
should be represented according to popula
tion, and in the other the States should be
equally represented ! New York, Pennsylva
nia, Virginia and Massachusetts said to the
small States, You shall be represented in the
one branch according to population ; and we
will consent to be represented in the other
branch by States. The large States were
discontented with the equal representation
in the Senate. The small States were
discontented with the great amount of power
which the large States had in the lower house.
This was then the first compromise. It was
the great one, because this difficulty came
nearer shipwrecking the whole government
than any other, and because it was the most
important. .
There was another compromise, and it
too, was important. The immediate occasion
of the formation of this government, grew
out of difficulties of navigation chiefly m
Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay. _ Great
difficulties arose on account of the different
commercial arrangements which were entered
into by the several states. For instance, if
Massachusetts laid duties, and Rhode Island
did not, goods would be introduced, duty
free, into Rhode Island, and smuggled over
the line. Ten thousand difficulties were
growing up between the different states on
this account, and particularly between Vir
ginia and Maryland, concerning the naviga
tion of Chesapeake Bay. These difficulties
led to the calling of a convention for the
purpose of amending the articles of confed
eration. It was ascertained at once, that this

could not be done. But finally a new al
tempt was made, which resulted in the font
ation of this Constitution. The attempt V.
regulate commerce was in fact what led t)
the formation of this Constitution. And thea
were obliged to make a compromise, which w-
have almost forgotten. j
There were some States which were agr
cultural States, raising tobacco and rice pruj
cipally, as the cultivation of cotton was the.
hardly thought of. They were plantin:
States. Then there were also certain Stat^,
which it was then foreseen would be navig;
ting and manufacturing States. The con:
merce existed then in some measure, but tt<
manufacturing did not to any great exten^
Now the agriculturists said, If we alio
Congress to regulate commerce, they wi(
put duties on exports, and thereby shut c"
the sale of our products. They did not th<!'
think that the duties on imports would prj
duce the same effect. They did not thipj
at that time, as seems to be now a favorfj
notion with some, that the greater the weig\
of taxation, the better for them and f*
the people, under the plea that the great
duty would furnish the greater protection j
our industry. Neither thinking of that, n
of the effect which would be produced by tf
taxation of imports, they insisted that Cflj
gress should put duties on imports alone.- 1
The revenue on the importation of goods w [,
of great value to New York and Massach"
setts. They gave up that, and this barga j
was made between the agricultural states <)
the one hand, and the commercial on the ot |
er, in which they agreed that exports shouJ
not be taxed, and that taxes on impoi.
should be equalized. _
Then came another compromise. Th
had not then thought that taxation on all t3
imported goods was to be regarded as a ble?
ing. Therefore they had never anticipat?
that all the revenue necessary for the purpqj
of carrying on the government would be c
tained on the imports. So strong was t'1,
feeling against raising a large revenue frcj
imports, that when Hamilton made a rep<3l
proposing five per cent, duties on some i1'
ports, he had to argue at great length to t^
effect, that though it was a terrible thing, #
should submit to it, because it was necessa>f
in order to obtain funds for the governmer*
The taxes on imports, it was not apprehei^
ed, would ever be so high as to defray fi
expenses of government. On the contra^
they expected that the expenses of govef
ment would be defrayed by direct taxatir1!

.?hen it became an important question, How
'ball taxation be apportioned among the
leople? "Why," said men at the North,
I according to population; and let every body,
Ihite and black, be enumerated." " No,"
(jplied the Sonth, "for here are our- south-
rn slaves who do not produce as much as
(our laborers. We ought not to be taxed
ccording to population . " And not only was
lere a compromise made on this subject, but
ley were ready to have their representation
jiminished by two-fifths of their slaves, which
,;as not much thought of at the time, inas
much as they obtained as a recompense what
as esteemed by them as a great boon, name-
', the taxation, also in proportion to their
ambers, omitting two fifths of their slaves.
his was very much desired at the South and
}posed at the North, And the South con-
jiered. We now talk about taking off the
jiole of their slave representation. I do not
^ow but that they would have been glad to
',ve had the whole removed, if they could by
at means have avoided taxation therefor.
pt was the point of view from which they
(3n looked upon it. It was, as you perceive,
en viewed very differentlyfrom what it now is.
iln that compromise there was no reference
liatever made to a slave, or to the condition
, a slave. It is simply a certain mode of
pertaining taxation and representation. It
!s decided, that to certain persons who were
scribed, they should add three-fifths of all
ier persons, to obtain the basis of repre-
ptation and direct taxation. The reason
y that phraseology was adopted, was, that
)re existed a sort of secret dislike of the in-
tution of slavery ; [applause ;] a dislike
tending to southern men as well as to north-
1 men. Southern men aided in the for-
ition of this Constitution, and in the adop-
n of this article. Southern men felt a sort
unpleasant sensation at the sound of that
rd slave, and of that other word slavery,
a did not fancy the idea of introducing
:m into a document which was to live for-
pr. They contrived to express their ideas,
jrefore, without mentioning those terms. —
|cannot be said that this was any compro-
pe on the subject of slavery. It was a
npromise on the subject of taxation. They
t in something equivalent on the subject of
Presentation.There comes, then, another compromise,
<ich is important. There were several small-
lones, to which I have not alluded. Those
Iwhich I have already referred, and that

which I shall mention, are important. The
remaining compromise is this :
Art. 1. Sec. 9. " The migration or importation
of such persons as any of the States now exist
ing shall think proper to admit, shall not be pro
hibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808."
Those who made the Constitution said that
this importation should go on in such States
as chose to carry it on, for twenty years, and
that after that time the federal power may he
exerted, and the slave trade shall be stopped.
Accordingly, when that period arrived, it was
declared piracy. At the moment that the
Constitution would allow Congress to act, that
moment Congress acted. There was not the
delay of a day or an hour. The slave trade
was forever prohibited. That is the last of
the important compromises.
Now when people talk about adhering to
the compromises of the constitution, referring
thereby to certain other things which are not
compromises, which are not the agreement of
two parties' in which each gives way a little
for the sake of that which it esteems a great
er good, but to those other things which are not
alluded to in the Constitution, I should like to
have them define what they mean. These
which I have mentioned, it is necessary to
adhere to.
Therefore I go on to declare as to certain
other clauses, that there are stipulations which
are to be construed. And I propose now to
construe them.
I come to the fourth article of the Consti-
tion of the United States. In that I find all
that is found in regard to the delivery of fu
gitive slaves. And I intend to ask, What
does that language mean ? Construe it by
the same rules according to which the other
clauses are construed. In the first place, the
first section of the fourth article of the Con
stitution of the United States says, '* Full
faith and credit shall be given in each State
to the public acts, records and judicial pro
ceedings of every other State." Every
State shall give full faith and credit to the
public records of every other state. Does
this grant power to any body ? I see in the
words that follow, what the makers of the
Constitution thought on that subject. I see
that they thought it did not grant the power
to Congress, because they add language giv
ing the power. What I have read is no
grant of power to Congress. It is a prohi
bition to the States. It says, You shall not
deny your belief in the truth of the public
records of your sister States. If a court in

South Carolina says a certain thing, you are
to give full faith to it. That does not say
that Congress shall do anything about it. —
And the people of the United States did not
understand that Congress had the power.
The makers of the Constitution did not un
derstand from the extract which I have read,
that Congress had any power over the sub
ject ; and for this reason, that the close of
the section gives to Congress the power which
would have been needless had the preceding
language conferred it. " And the Congress
may, by general laws, prescribe the manner
in which such acts, records and proceedings
shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
What need was there of adding this latter
clause if the first was a grant of power ? You
may read this constitution through, and you
will not find any words wasted. Every word
means something. It was put there because
it was necessary, and because the meaning
would not have been there without it. I say
that that first clause did not contain a grant
of power ; and the men who put it there
knew it. They first say that faith shall be
given ; and then bestow on Congress the
power in relation thereto. The powers not
delegated to Congress are reserved to the
States. That power would have been re
served to the States if not given to Congress
in the last clause of this section. Can lan
guage make that clearer. I go to the next
section. —
Sec. 2. " The citizens of each State shall
be entitled to all the privileges and immuni
ties of citizens in the several States."
Very well ! A colored man in Massachu
setts goes out from our ports, and goes into
one of the harbors of South Carolina. They
do not give him the immunities of the citizeif
of the State. Does any southern man con
tend that Congress has the power to enforce
that section ? No ! there is no power grant
ed there. There is a declaration of a princi
ple, but it does not say that Congress shall
possess the power to enforce it. Therefore
they say that South Carolina may make what
laws she pleases, and the United States gov
ernment can do nothing to prevent it. They
adopt one rule for this clause, and another
rule for another clause in the same section.
But do I say that Congress has the power to
enforce action in consonance with this clause,
in the harbor of Charleston ? No ! I choose
strict construction on all these clauses. I
adopt the rule of strict construction in them
all, and not a strict construction in one and a
loose one in another.

The next clause is as follows : "A per
son charged in any State with treason, felony J
or any other crime, who shall flee from jus
tice and be found in another State, shall, oil
demand of the Executive authority of the1
state from which he fled, be delivered up, to!
be removed to the State having jurisdiction 01
the crime." Under that clause no serious
difficulty has arisen. The States have given
up criminals, and no State has of late years-
objected to it.
Then comes the next clause : "No per
son held to service or labor in one State, unl
der the laws thereof, escaping into another*
shall in consequence of any law or regulation
therein be discharged from such service 01
labor." To whom is that directed ? To the States;
or to Congress? To the States! It says:
" no person shall be discharged by any la^
or regulation of the States." That is a reg!
ulation addressed to the States and not to th<|
Union. And then it goes on to say, "Bui
shall be delivered up on claim of the partj
to whom such service or labor may be due."
In the case of a person charged with crime
the rule is, that he shall be removed to tW
State having jurisdiction of the crime. Nowi
if the first part of this section is addressed te
the States, then to whom is the subsequenl
clause addressed ? For it does not go on to
say Congress shall make the laws, but it sayii
you shall deliver up. How can any persor [
contend that one is addressed to the Statej j
and the other not ?
One clause says they shall not make laws! i
and the next, that they shall deliver up. ]
say that that last clause is as clearly addressed
to the States as the first. And then I g<j
back to the old rule laid down by our fathers;
written by Samuel Adams in the Bill o
Rights of Massachusetts, in which he says
" Every power, jurisdiction and right, shal
remain with the people, unless specially del
egated to Congress." Have these powers
been delegated? ["No! No!"]
There is not, then, in this clause, a dele
gation of power to the United States govern
ment to pass any law about fugitives fron
labor. There is a direction that certain things'
shall be done, and that certain other things
shall not be done. And that is directed tcj
the States. A fugitive shall not, by any la^
or regulation of that State, be discharged.
That is addressed to the State.
I come, then, to the conclusion to whicl
the present head of the State departmen1
came, and which he announced again as lat<

>ns March 7, 1850. I come to the conclusio
THhat this section of the Constitution was ad
dressed to the States. I quote Mr Web-
\ ster's opinion for this reason, that he has ai
rways gone rather further in favor of increas
ing the power of the government than the
r Democratic party. Mr. Webster has gone
(cfurther than we have. He has allowed a
(c National Bank to be constitutional. I might
igive other cases. His mind is of such a na
ture that it has a tendency to extend the pow-
fiers of the United States government a great
Meal further than the Democratic party have
^thought it right. I am not now criticising
ahis opinions in favor of enlarging the powers
tjof the government. He has been a Federal
ist all his life, belonging to a party who have
been inclined to give great power to the Uni
ted States government. It is not at all un
likely that if the power had existed in the
^Constitution, he would there have found it.
il'He says particularly that he thought it was
(^directed to the states, and not to the general
pgovernment.p- The United States Supreme Court have
^made a decision to the contrary. That is a
Pfact which stares us full in the face. In the
Jcase of Prigg vs. the State of Pennsylvania,
!>they decided that the States have no right to
i legislate for the carrying into effect of this
Section, but that the power thereof lies in
^Congress. Perhaps it would not be proper
ffor me, considering my profession as a law-
lyer, to argue the case against them. But I
Hm not satisfied with the decision, or their
sjeasons for it. And I believe it was a mis
take. I believe, too, that it was a mistake,
tthe whole consequences of which will not be
tseen for many years. I think they should
'have taken the ground the democratic party
¦taust take, (for they cannot come to any
rother conclusion,) and which Daniel Webster
tells us was his opinion, that the language of
this clause of the Constitution, was addressed
\o the States. [Applause.]
' Why, my friends, two sets of dangers have
palways threatened this government in the
'view of the people ; one party has feared
fthat it might fall to pieces ; the other that it
%night become too strong. Which have we
inow most reason to apprehend ? Is there
fcany danger that our government will prove
>to be too weak? Originally, one fear was
Jthat they could not raise money enough to
idefray the expenses of the government. They
l<did not think of obtaining a revenue by the
taxation of imports to such an extent as to
raise thirty or forty millions of dollars. They

thought of one million, one and a half or two
millions of dollars. Alexander Hamilton
said that the government could not be car
ried on because men would not travel from
Maine and Georgia, as far as Washington,
for the purpose of participating in the affairs
of government. Now it is not difficult to
find men of the first order of talent to come
even from California, if their mileage be paid.
[Laughter.] The dangers that the general government
could not enlist powerful men ; that it could
not raise money enough for its expenses, have
disappeared in smoke and mist, and we can
now hardly conceive of such dangers.
But the contrary danger is more and more
a reality. There may be a continual accu
mulation of power by the general govern
ment. There may be such an increase of
taxation as to crush the community. There
may be a large standing army. Nobody
thinks of any objection to adding a million or
five millions of dollars for the support of the
army or navy. But add a few thousand
dollars to the salary of the Judges of the
United States, and there will be a great out
cry about the lavish expenditure of the gov
ernment. I say that the constant increase of power
of the general government does seriously affect
the interests of the community. If that be
so, how is it to be cured ? How is it to be
prevented ? For prevention is easier than
cure. It is to be prevented by the strict
construction of the Constitution. And this
becomes every hour more necessary, not only
because it will prevent the enlargement of
the power of the government, but in conse
quence of the great extent of our territory.
If the government extended over New
England only, there is a homogeneous people
which might be easily managed. But when
we come to have States like New England,
States like the cotton and planting States of
the South and West, with new and distant
States like California, containing divers hab
its, religions, and so much diversity in all
those things which make a people one peo
ple, then it is important that the sphere of
your general government should not be ex
tended into all sorts of matters. It should
be restricted to its proper subjects. For in
stance, the regulation of foreign commerce !
That is necessarily done by the general gov
ernment. I am for carrying it a little fur
ther than some people. Knowing that it
was the intent of the framers of the Consti-

tution to carry it as far as the necessity went,
I am for carrying it as far as that necessity
demands. And when the general government de
cided that this power could be exercised
for the construction of light houses, the con
struction of piers, and for the removal of ob
structions in the harbors of our eastern ports,
and when I saw all that, I thought that it was
a legitimate exercise of power. And I thought
the same principle could be carried into the
West just as well as on the Atlantic coast.
If that power will authorize the removal of
an obstruction in New York harbor, it will
authorize the removal of obstructions in the
waters of the Mississippi. If it will author
ize expenditures at Cape Ann, it will also
authorize them in Lake Michigan. Give the
West fair play. Let the government do
what must be done ; and then carry the
principle out so as to make it fair and equal
for all sections of the country. [Cheers.] But
having done that I would not allow the gen
eral government to go into any exercise of
power which is not delegated to it. Since
the decision of the case of Prigg, the States
have thought they were not responsible for
what was done. They have therefore in
some cases refused the use of their jails, and
the assistance of their officers, for the recap
ture of fugitive slaves. The United States
government now go on and legislate.
It would be easy to illustrate in a thousand
ways, the evils that may grow in the future
history of the country out of this disposition
of the general government to encroach upon
the rights of the States — to show that the
fears of Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Ad
ams, and Patrick Henry, and Elbridge Gerry
— fears of indefinite usurpation tending to
wards, and finally terminating in consolidated
federal despotism, may perhaps some day be
realized. I prefer to take this precise evil in
order to illustrate the effect of this tendency.
A law which is made by a State, is likely to
be suited to what is to be done. The State
of Massachusetts knows what her people can
bear, and what they cannot bear. But if a
law is to be made contrary to the sentiments
of any State, it will be impracticable to carry
it out in that State.
How does that apply to the question of
slavery ? Just in this way ! The retaking
of fugitive slaves is to be carried out, if any
where, in a free State. Slaves do not, when
they escape, stop in a Slave State. If fugi
tives are to be returned from any place, it is
from a Free State. When Congress makes

a law on the subject, it makes it against thi
very inmost sentiments of the souls of thi,
people of the free States. [" Shame ! 'i
"Shame!"] ,
Is that a power likely by its exercise to ten*
to the perpetuation of the Union, by carryin;
out this law. I propose to perpetuate thi
Union by checking the power of the Genera,
Government, by confining it within its legitj
mate sphere of action, to those concerns upoi
which it may act for the common good, witl
out arousing indignation and hatred in on;
section against the other ; sometimes drivin
South Carolina to the brink of rebellion bj
the galling weight of unjust and intolerabl
taxation, and sometimes outraging; all that i
honest and patriotic in puritan Massachi,
setts, by levelling at a single blow all thos
bulwarks of liberty, which barons bold an,
sages grave in the olden time, and the B^
publicans who brought the Stuart to tb
block, with those who broke the yoke of tb
house of Hanover in later days, had labored
each in their generation since the twelft
century, to erect ; which it is the proudest prj
rogative and boast of Britain that she pO|
sesses ; and which constituted the richest i}
heritance that our fathers received from tb
mother island empire. I propose that th
Federal power shall lift its iron heel from tb.
neck of Massachusetts, and return to its aj
pointed duty, and circumscribed routing
[Loud Cheers.]
But we are told that these are measurt
of conciliation, measures of peace. Ei |
force this law, and we shall have peace ap
quietness, it is said. How ? Is one-third \ i.
the white people of the United States to di,
tate to the other two-thirds, and call the,
submission peace ? I admit that these slat
interests may set one part of the counti
against the other. It may so happen thi
difficulties will take place in either casj
whether you legislate according to opinioi
almost universal, and moral feelings deep]
rooted, and sanctioned by the religion i
nine-tenths of the people of the North wt
possess either morals or religion, or wheth<
you legislate according to notions which ai
common in all communities upon whom tl
institution of slavery has been entailed. Bt
is it just as likely to cause difficulty whe
two-thirds of the whole people of the cou|
try are irritated as when only one third a:
irritated? [Applause.] I see no way
getting out of this difficulty, so straight-fc
ward, so sure of its results, as it would b
if practicable, to go back to the old Dem

T2~~

[pratic principle, of the strict construction of
jill constitutional grants of power ; and find
ing no such power delegated, finding that it
i,s not so nominated in the bond, to say the
United States Government have nothing to
|lo with this matter. [Cheering.]
But, sir and gentlemen, as this subject is
()ne of great interest, and as the manner in
'vhich it has been most commonly discussed
:s different from the course I have pursued,
illow me to go one step further. If it be
granted, which I do not grant at all, — if it
he granted that the United States government
•,ias the right to make a law upon this subject,
jinder the fourth article, let us inquire
;vhat sort of a law it gives them a right to
jhake ; for that is a matter of great conse
quence. A man charged with crime shall on
Gemand be delivered up ! That is the law.
JVhat have you to ascertain before you givo
<!im up ? Simply that he is charged .' That
¦leans, that he is charged by some responsi
ble person, on what a lawyer would call good
Jnd probable cause, upon which charge, so
t»r substantiated, the executive of the State
[rom which it is alleged that he fled , demands
"im, by a formal written requisition.
l Where shall he be tried ? Where he is
sparged ! It is a privilege to the party
'.harged with crime that he shall be tried
f'here the crime is alleged to have been com
mitted. This is inserted for the benefit of
,ie person charged with crime. So that, if a
person be charged with crime, let him go back
') the place where it is alleged that the deed
.'•as committed, for there he can most easily
trove his innocence. This is based on a very
mcient principle of the English common law.
C The question to be decided is, Is the man
oarged ? Does a responsible man who
[[¦ould be convicted of perjury if it were not
i .Tie, swear that he committed the crime? If
D, we will take his oath and send the accused
San back. We will take the requisition of
>ie executive as proof that such a charge
Us been made. He does not have his trial
,'here he is found, but only his preliminary
'rial there. The preliminary inquiry in such
L case may be accomplished by a summary
Lrocess, for it includes little more than the
Verification of the authority under which he
jj demanded, and proof of the fugitive's
^entity. It is not necessary to have a
:iry in Massachusetts to try a man who is
Liarged with having committed a murder in
^'ew York. You could not conveniently
' ive him a fair and full trial here. You,
'lerefore, go through a summary process to

determine whether it is necessary to send
this man back.
I go next to the succeeding clause. I
now that the men who made this Constitu
tion knew what they were about, and did not
put a single clause here, or a single word
here, without meaning. There is no book
in the English language, of which the con
struction is so plain, as the constitution of the
United States. If a man comes to it with a
sincere and honest heart, and will take the
trouble to compare one portion with another,
he cannot fail to come to a right conclusion.
We come, then, to the next section : " 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, &c." There is a very
extraordinary difference of language between
this section and the preceding one. In that
it was a " person charged with crime."
There was probable cause to believe that he
might be guilty. But in this section, is it a per
son charged with being held to service ? a per
son that somebody swears was held to service ?
The Constitution tells you what it is : " No
person held to service or labor, &c." If he is
not held, he is not liable. " No person
held to service or labor in one State, under
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall
in consequence of any regulation therein, be
discharged from such service or labor ; but
shall be delivered up, &c." Who shall be
delivered up? The person "held." Not
the person " charged," as in the case of a
person charged with murder. It is not the
person suspected, but it is the person " held."
When ? Not till it is found out whether he
be held or not, I take it. [Repeated rounds
of applause.]
But the person held to service or labor,
" shall be delivered up on claim of the party
to whom such service or labor may be due."
The party who held him must prove that the
service or labor is due and that he was held.
How is this to be done ? Is it to be done by
a summary process ? Did any man ever hear
of such a thing except in relation to slavery ?
[" Hear ! hear !"] Did any man ever hear
that any question of liberty or property was
finally disposed of by means of a summary
process, except in relation to this subject of
slavery ?
We are told that we should submit. Now
I do not go to a Southern State to tell them
what they shall do, or what they shall not do.
Let them provide for their own institutions
as thev please, but let them not mmA Jioro

and tell me that a man shall not have a trial
by jury, and that he shall not only not have
a jury trial here, but, perhaps, no where
else. I do not admit any such doctrine here.
[Cheers.] Why, is it not quite clear how this question
whether he be held to service or not, should
be decided ? What is the principle of the
Constitution of the United States on that sub
ject ? For there is a principle laid down here.
There is very little left out that ought to be
in this Constitution. There is laid down
here the rule that no man shall " be deprived
of his life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." That is in the 5th article
of the amendments of the Constitution of
the United States.
Now I take it, if you seize a colored man, —
or you may seize a white man under the
operation of this law, — if you seize any man
in Massachusetts under this fugitive slave
law, the first question is, Shall he be deprived
of liberty ? You are not to take it for grant
ed that he is a slave/ All presumptions of
law are in favor of liberty. It is a maxim old
er than Christianity itself, " Presumitur pro
libertate ;" that the presumption is always to
be in favor of liberty. Now, if I say it was
the maxim of ancient Rome before Christ
was born, it is the maxim of Christian Eu
rope, and of everybody, the world over, to
day ; it is the maxim of the civil law of Eu
rope, coming from the early ages of the Re
public, through the Empire, and surviving
the Empire, a system of law matured for
twenty-five hundred years, into the most per
fect embodiment of human reason to which
the world has given birth ; this law cried
through all time, " All men are by nature
free ;" it is the great cry of Pagandom to Chris
tendom, and Christendom echoes it back ; it is
the maxim of the common law of England ;
it is the maxim of the common law of Massa
chusetts ; it is the maxim of the whole world,
save only the slaveholding States of this
Union. [Enthusiastic shouts of applause.] It
is to be presumed that the man is free, from
the fact that he is a man made in the image
of God. [Renewed cheers.]
The image of God stamped upon him cer
tifies him to be free. [Cheers.] The human
form divine with which he walks erect and
proudly looks to heaven, certifies him to be
free. [Intense sensation.] And when all
Roman and all European, aye, Asiatic and
American laws have decided he shall be
free — when that is the universal law of the
world, I will not agree that any miserable

notion of a temporary expediency shall make
me bow down to that very detestable, abom
inable, horrible, and wicked doctrine, tha1
the color of a man shall establish the faet» or
even furnish a presumption of the fact, that
he is not free. [Cheers repeated for a con
siderable time.]
I go on then upon the Constitution of the
United States, and I say this man found in
the State of Massachusetts is presumed to be
free ; and therefore, when you seek to make
a slave of him, the question is, Shall he h(
deprived of his liberty ? He has his liberty!
Shall he be deprived of it ? The Constitutiori
says he shall not be deprived of his life
liberty or property, without due process of law
I admire the arrangement of those threi
words. I admire the putting of liberty be
tween life and property. There are tw<
schools on this subject : some who think lifi
is worth more than property, some who thinl
the life of a man is worth more than tb'
shirt upon his back ; and others who have :
sacred regard for the dollars a man possesses
and believe that his purse is vastly more irr
portant than his person. If a man thinks tha
life is the more important of the two, then i
liberty placed most "appropriately by the sid
of it. If on the contrary he thinks property c
the most importance, then liberty takes prec<
dence even of that. Between property an
life, it is in either case in a respectable pos
tion. [Applause.]
What is " due process of law? " Let no
say why it was that that clause was put ther<
For all these safeguards are inserted in tb
Constitution by its framers, or by those wb
amended it, because they knew what ha
happened in the past. Men had been di
prived of their lives, their liberty, and the:
property, without due process of law. The
had in their minds the practices in the Hous
of Stuart under James I, and Charles I, an
in a degree under Charles II, and James I.
Men's liberties had been taken away withoi
due process of law, without trial by jur
This was accomplished by means of the Sti
Chamber, without trial by jury, without tl
confronting of witnesses.
In that Star Chamber, and also by meai
of certain other courts, the liberties of tl
citizens were taken away. Commissione j
were also appointed, constituting irregul !
courts, not the courts of the king's bene
nor any other courts, with stated terms ; b
this appointment was effected by selectii
certain individuals, fit tools of the tyrai
These would constitute a court, for the e

.iiress purpose of trying a certain man. Com
missioners were appointed who went down
'nd tried the case without a jury, and with
out a public hearing and without confronting
I'he witnesses. In that way men's liberties
[ave been taken away. This was no new
Ihing under the Stuarts. It had been done
I'.nder the Tudors, under the Plantagenets,
,<nd even before the Plantagenets. This
:-ery ancient abomination, this hoary survivor
jjF the iniquities of a thousand years had been
fmong the causes of the civil wars between the
•[lonareh and the subject, in which British
(words were sheathed in British hearts, till the
fenuine Norman nobility was almost extermi
nated from the land. It was denounced in all the
; > ills of Rights in the English language, and
),i charters before the English language
his known, in Magna Charta, before Magna
fharta, and perpetually in all proclamations
(? liberties afterwards.
I When this article was added to the Con-
,iitution, those who did it meant to guard
gainst these usurpations of power. Govern-
( ents are the same in all ages, and these
tiings might be done in our nation as well
(i elsewhere. No man shall " be deprived of
|fe, liberty, or property, without due process
\! law." By due process of law, they meant
| due process of proceeding in common law.
% was the taking away of the trial by jury,
i was the taking away of the habeas corpus,
f was Star Chamber doctrine — it was all this
frainst which they acted.
[ What was due process of law ? That gen
ial examination of the Constitution, of which
i(have given you only a sketch, would show
jjm what it was. To prevent any possible
tabiguity, they said, in the seventh article of
mendments, " In suits at common law where
,fi value in controversy shall exceed twenty
pilars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre-
trved."
I And they supposed when they had secured
(jjth criminal prosecutions and civil suits, that
\ej had covered everything. They meant to
s[ver all things, except well known and well
Jifined proceedings in admiralty, proceedings
( chancery, and also courts martial. They
teant to include all save those exceptional
^ses, and they did not suppose that anybody
t'rald imagine that the trial of a man's liber-
iwas one of these. The writ to ascertain
tiiether a serf belonged to the lord who
'turned him, is one of the oldest in the com-
!»n law.
¦1 Will any one rise up and say that a man's
i«rty is not worth twenty dollars ? If a man

owes another eighteen or twenty dollars, and
it costs a hundred dollars to get it, he would
certainly better not have a jury to try the
case. All sums below twenty dollars cannot
be tried by a jury for this reason, viz., that
it would cost more than that to try the case.
Some limit it was necessary to fix ; and
that amount was selected as the most appropri
ate. They never dreamed that any man's
liberty would not be considered worth twenty
dollars. What is a man's liberty worth ? Will the
owner say it is not worth twenty dollars ? If
it be worth to the master five hundred dollars,.
is it not worth as much to the man himself?
No slave would escape, no master would pur
sue him, no master would keep him, if he
were not worth more than twenty dollars.
But, "In suits at common law, where the
value in controversy shall exceed twenty dol
lars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre
served." Now the Supreme Court of the
United States have decided (in the case of
Lee against Lee) that a man's liberty is worth
to him, in all cases, more than one thousand
dollars, and that where there is no appeal un
less the amount in controversy exceeds one
thousand dollars, if the liberty of the party be
brought in question, he shall have his appeal.
Due process of law is meant to distinguish
the careful, guarded, strict, precise manner
known to the English law, from the summary
military process used in time of war. There
can therefore be no doubt, that a person held
to service is, by due process of law, entitled
to his trial by jury. [Applause.]
There are other questions entitled to con
sideration, if I did not perceive that the hour
is approaching at which a great portion of my
audience will be obliged to leave the hall if
they wish to reach their homes to night.
[Cries of "Goon! goon!"]
I lay down two propositions : First, that
the government have no jot or tittle of power,
authorizing them to act for the rendition of
fugitive slaves ; and second, even if they had
such a power, this clause would require that
it should be exercised under due process of
law, which due process of law includes a jury
trial. [Applause.] A jury trial, where?
" A person HELD to service shall be de
livered up." Certainly, in the place where
he is seized ! He should be tried by an im
partial jury. It is said, carry a man from
Maine to Texas, and then he can have his
trial. I should prefer not to run that risk if
I were liable to be arrested. I would make
it certain whether I had been held to service,

before I ran the risk of perpetual servitude,
by being carried into a slave State.
But that is not all. Suppose that every
man who claims a fugitive slave were as wise
as Solomon, and as upright as Sir Matthew
Hale. Suppose he were determined to give
the alleged fugitive a fair trial in a Slave
State. — What follows ? Simply, that in the
Slave-holding States, the rule of law is op
posite to what it is here. Here he is a free
man till he be proved to be a slave. There he
is a slave till he be proved to be a freeman.
The rule at the South is, that a colored
man is a slave till he be proved free. He
may be free and unable to prove it, because
he has lost his free papers. He may be free
because his mother and grandmother were
free before him, and they might not be able
to testify in a Southern court.
Suppose that they should always construe
their laws fairly. Would you send a man
back to a system of laws where a man is pre
sumed to be a slave ? [" No ! no !"] And
I say no ! Never ! Try a man where he is
presumed to be free. [Cheers.]
I will go no further, but simply read these

resolutions which 1 believe embody the sub
stance of what I have said, and leave them to
your decision. I have made this explanation,
though I knew that it would be distasteful to
some persons who have heretofore voted for
me. I want them to show their numbers in
favor of the expediency of making a change in
the candidate. I want the Democratic party
to strike out the course which they will choose
to pursue, and I think they need no assur
ance from me that in any course they may
adopt, for the furtherance of sound demo
cratic principles, the ancient principles of old
fashioned liberty, they will find in me a
zealous coadjutor. I will read the resolutions,
because they state my position more clearly
than the remarks which I have had the
honor to address to you. [The Hon. gentle
man closed amid enthusiastic applause.]

The resolutions were then put to vote, and
the response shook the hall like thunder,
They were passed by an overwhelming
" aye " to one solitary " no!" Mr. Rantou
was then unanimously re-nominated for Con
gress.

YALE