Читать книгу Fugitive Slaves (1619-1865) - Marion Gleason McDougall - Страница 14

§ 20. Propositions from 1817 to 1822.—For many years the question of amendment of the law does not appear to have come up in Congress. The abolition of the slave trade seems to have absorbed the attention of Congress. Several treaties were negotiated including clauses on the return of fugitives.⁹¹ The question was brought up again in 1817 by Pindall of Virginia, who for several years urged a revision of the act. A committee of which he was chairman was appointed, December 15, 1817, and reported a bill, December 29, 1817.⁹² This third proposition of general amendment led to a debate, January 26 and 29, 1818, in which for the first time we have a record of discussion on the principles of the act and its relations to human freedom. The opposition was based not only on constitutional, but on humanitarian grounds.⁹³ A petition of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, asking for a milder law than that of 1793, added fuel to the discussion.⁹⁴

The principle of the bill was that the fugitives should be surrendered by a requisition on the State Executive, as in the case of fugitives from justice: the question of proof was thus left to the courts of the State of the claimant, and there was to be no habeas corpus. The strongest expression of disapproval is found in the speech of Mr. Adams of Massachusetts, who said, "that, in guaranteeing the possession of slaves, the Constitution did not authorize or require the General Government to go as far as the bill proposed to render this bill effectual; that the bill contained provisions dangerous to the liberty and safety of the free people of color in other sections of the Union."⁹⁵ Mr. Rich of Vermont desired "that it might be so amended as to guard more effectually the rights of free persons of color. This motion he enforced by urging the oppressions to which these persons were now subjected, and the necessity of some regulation on the subject, which he thought might be very properly connected with this bill."⁹⁶ Mr. Livermore also showed that it exposed the colored men of the North to the peril of being dragged South, and there convicted.⁹⁷

All these objections, however, were considered of little value by some who, like Smith of Maryland, thought that the subject of the free colored population and their protection should be treated separately, while Mr. Holmes of Massachusetts suggested that the operation of the writ of habeas corpus would render such acts of injustice improbable.⁹⁸ Mason, of the same State, objected to a trial by jury, which had been suggested, because "juries in Massachusetts would in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred decide in favor of the fugitives, and he did not wish his town [Boston] infected with the runaways of the South."⁹⁹

Upon two constitutional points the opponents of the bill made a stand. Mr. Sergeant wished to change the bill materially, by making "the judges of the State in which … slaves are seized the tribunal to decide the fact of slavery, instead of the judges of the State whence the fugitives escaped," but this was negatived by a large majority.¹⁰⁰

Another objection to the bill, raised by Mr. Whitman, is noteworthy, since some years later it was the point made most prominent in Judge Story's decision in the Prigg Case.¹⁰¹ Mr. Whitman disapproved of the provision making it a penal offence for a State officer to refuse his assistance in executing the act. He did not believe that Congress had any right to compel State officers to perform this duty; they could do no more than authorize it.¹⁰²

A vote was taken, January 30, 1818, in the House, and the bill passed by a vote of 84 to 69.¹⁰³ It was ordered that the title be "An Act to provide for delivering up persons held to labor or service in any of the States or Territories who shall escape into any other State or Territory."

For the first time since 1793, amendment of the act seemed within reach. The Senate showed itself in other questions more inclined than the House to consider the claims of the South; but although Dagget's amendment to strike out the elaborate provision for the return of fugitives by executive requisition was not adopted,¹⁰⁴ the Senate first voted to limit the bill to four years,¹⁰⁵ and then added other amendments. The result was a non-concurrence with the House, and the failure of the bill,¹⁰⁶ March 13–16, 1818. A last attempt to take the bill up failed, April 10, 1818.¹⁰⁷