Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 11 (of 20)Sumner, Charles
History
Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 11 (of 20)
Sumner, Charles
Slavery -- United States; Speeches, addresses, etc., American
go into the discussion of that question.” Finding that the
bill had passed the stage when it could be amended, he moved
to reconsider the vote ordering it to be engrossed and read a
third time, which was done, when he moved to add these words:--
“Except the Act approved February 12, 1793, entitled ‘An
Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping
from the service of their masters.’”
Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, proposed to repeal the Act of 1850,
leaving the Act of 1793 in force. Mr. Sherman thought “we had
better repeal all the laws on the subject except the Act of
1793.” Mr. Reverdy Johnson said: “The Constitution as it is
now, according to my interpretation of it, not only authorized
the passage of the Act of 1793 and the passage of the Act of
1850, but made it the duty of Congress to pass some law of that
description.” Mr. Sumner followed.
MR. PRESIDENT,--I shall not be carried into extended debate, but shall
content myself with replying directly to what has been said on the
other side.
There is, first, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN], who intervened
to arrest the generous purpose of the Senate, as it was about to vote,
by a motion to preserve the old Act of 1793. Strange that now, while
we are in deadly conflict with Slavery, it should be proposed to keep
alive an ancient support of Slavery. For the Senator gravely insists,
and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. REVERDY JOHNSON] insists with him.
But the Senator from Ohio does not seem aware of the character of the
statute he would preserve. Let me remind him that by this enactment,
towards which he is so tender, a fellow-man may be hurried before a
magistrate and doomed to Slavery without trial by jury. Can this be
constitutional? Will the Senator sanction such a thing?
Then the other Senator, who is so familiar with our jurisprudence,
takes exception to the statement that Mr. Justice Story admitted that
the constitutionality of the Act of 1793 had never been affirmed by the
Supreme Court. He thinks that this learned judge never made any such
statement. But he is mistaken. Here is a volume containing the Life and
Letters of Joseph Story, carefully prepared and published by his son. I
turn to the passage.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account