who has escaped from one State to another restored and delivered up to him, and of the validity of the fugitive slave law enacted for this purpose, together with a declaration that all State laws in passing or defeating this right are violations of the Constitution, and are consequently null and void." In harmony with this recommendation, various amendments were shortly proposed. Some of these, as that introduced by Mr. Kellogg of Illinois, expressly empowered Congress to pass laws necessary to secure the return of fugitives.' The executives of Northern States had refused to comply with a requisition for the extradition of men accused of assisting slaves to escape, on the ground that the act alleged was not considered a crime in a free State. To meet this difficulty, some of these propositions, like that offered by Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Pugh of Ohio, asserted that the laws of the State from which persons flee shall be the test of criminality. One, introduced by Mr. Hindman," proposed to enforce the return of fugitives by providing that "any State whose legislature has enacted, or may hereafter enact, laws defeating or impairing the right of the master to have his escaped slave delivered up to him (according to the provisions of the fugitive slave law of 1850) shall not be entitled to representation in either House of Congress until the repeal of such nullifying statutes." (2) Another class of amendments proposed to insure the rights of the slaveowner by making compensation for fugitives that might be lost by reason of the legislation of any State or the act of its constituted authorities, or by the rescue of the fugitive, or by intimidation. Thus Crittenden and Douglas proposed that Congress should have power to enact laws requiring the United States to pay to owners who should apply for it, the full value of their fugitives in all cases when they are unable to recover them by the marshal being unable to arrest by reason of violence or intimidation. The United States should have a right in its own name to sue the county in which the violence was committed, and the county in turn might sue and recover from the wrongdoers. Another variation provided for payment by the State. Andrew Johnson of Tennessee insisted on an "explicit declaration in the Constitution that it is the duty of each State for itself to return fugitive slaves when demanded by the proper authority or pay double their cash value out 1 App., Nos. 898, 914. 4 App., Nos. 832, 849, 852f, 869j; also 874g, 971g. 5 App., No. 794. 1 of the treasury of the State." Mr. English of Indiana also offered an amendment requiring, that whenever a fugitive slave was rescued, the city, county, or township in which such rescue was made should be liable to the master in double the value of the slave. Still others, like that proposed by Mr. Clemens of Virginia, gave the United States the right to impose a tax on the county or city in which a fugitive slave was rescued by violence as pay for the same, and the city or county had the right to sue the wrongdoers.3 (3) On the other hand, a few amendments were offered looking to an amelioration of the act of 1850. To meet the criticism directed against the fugitive slave law of 1850, that the fugitive was not given the benefit of a trial by jury, Mr. Florence of Pennsylvania introduced two articles, one providing that "an alleged fugitive, on request, shall have a trial by jury at the place to which he may be returned;" the second provided "in case such person claimed to be a citizen of another State, he should have the right of appeal, or of a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States." The series presented by Mr. Saulsbury of Delaware, April, 1864, as a substitute for the thirteenth amendment, in addition to the sections prohibiting a State passing any law interfering or obstructing the recovery of fugitives, contained a proposition similar to that of Mr. Florence, save that the article was a little more favorable to the fugitive, inasmuch as it stipulated that the fugitive, on request, should have a trial by jury before being returned." It is almost needless to add that there was not the slightest hope that any of the three classes of amendments would be adopted. A compromise was no longer possible. The question of slavery could be solved only by its destruction, which was accomplished by the civil war.6 App., No. 817. 2 App., No. 802. 3 App., No. 927. 4 App., Nos. 888, 889. 5 App., Nos. 1012, 1013. Same in his proposition in 1861. App., No. 971d. In this same year Mr. Sumner proposed an amendment to strike out the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article. App., No. 986b. 6 There is reason, however, to think that the Northern States would have withdrawn their objectionable acts if there had been reason to think that this action would have kept the Southern States from secession. Rhodes, History of the United States, I, pp. 147-148, 252-253, notes; McPherson, History of the Rebellion, pp. 44-47. On December 17, 1860, Mr. Adrian's resolution recommending the repeal of all statutes, including personal liberty bills, so called, enacted by State legislatures which were in violation of the Constitution, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 154 to 14. McPherson, p. 75. 109. SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. More promising at the beginning of the session of 1860-61, was the advocacy of amendments affecting the status of slavery in the Territories. All other slavery questions were by comparison insignificant. In the Territories appeared in its clearest form, the essential difficulty which divided the Union, the existence of a slaveholding section and a free section united under one government. Three attempts had been made to settle the question by law-in the compromises of 1820 and 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska bill. One attempt had been made to settle it by judicial construction of the law in the Dred Scott decision. If it could not be settled by constitutional amendment there was no hope of an agreement. Among the amendments attempting to surmount the trouble and to preserve the Union, by far the largest group were those which had reference to slavery in the Territories and the District of Columbia. (1) A considerable class made provision for a geographical division of the Territories, most of them by the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude; slavery to be forbidden in all the Territories north of said division line, and to be permitted in the region south of said line; but a Territory of either section, when ready to enter the Union, was to be admitted with or without slavery, as its constitution should prescribe. Such amendments were introduced by Messrs. Crittenden, English, Johnson of Tennessee, Kellogg of Illinois, and Clemens of Virginia, and appeared also in the series framed by the peace convention. They fairly represent the sentiment of the moderate men from the North and from the so-called border States. Some of the propositions stipulated that "persons held to service or labor" might be taken into any Territory south of 36° 30′, and the right to such service should not be impaired; but they should not be taken into any Territory of the United States while in a Territorial condition north of 36° 30.3 As late as 1864, Senator Saulsbury introduced, in his series offered as a substitute for the thirteenth amendment, a provision in regard to slavery in the Territories south of 36° 30'. (2) The doctrine of the "extension of the Constitution" to the Territories was set forth in another class, of which the 1 Scott v. Sandford, 19 How., 393. 2 App., Nos. 784, 796, 800, 816, 827, 852a, 858, 864, 874a, 875, 894, 896, 912, 917, 918, 923, 932, 942, 955, 971. 3 App., No. 887. recommendations of President Buchanan is typical. The Constitution was to be so amended that it should be the duty of Congress to protect the rights of slavery in all the Territories." Others would have reached the same end by prohibiting Congress from making any regulation impairing the right of property in slaves in the Territories. Other amendments, like that introduced by Mr. Vallindigham, declared the equal right of any person from any section to migrate to the Territories, and forbade the impairment of the rights of either person or property in the Territories.2 (3) Senator Douglas brought forward his favorite principle of popular sovereignty in the proposition that Congress should make no law in respect to slavery in any Territory, but the status of each Territory in respect to servitude should remain unchanged until it reached a population of 50,000 whites.3 Other sections of this same resolution made applicable to the Territories the clause of the Constitution in regard to fugitives from justice, and also extended the jurisdiction of the United States judicial power over the same. (4) The principle of the Dred Scott decision was represented in a proposition forbidding the Territorial legislature, as well as Congress, from making any law respecting slavery.* 110. ADMISSION OF STATES. Most of the articles to amend the Constitution contained a section which provided for the admission of the Territories into the Union, whether north or south of the dividing parallel, whenever they had fulfilled the conditions necessary for admission, with or without slavery, as their constitution should provide, or limitations were sometimes added as in the series of amendments introduced by Mr. Florence of Pennsylvania, December 18, 1860. He provided that no new State should be admitted without the consent of two-thirds of all the members of both branches of Congress, the yeas and nays being entered 5 App., No. 1003. 2 App., No. 906. 3 App., No. 836. 6 Also similar provision in other proposition submitted by him. App.. Nos. 869a, 869m. The latter declared that "all Territorial governments shall be formed on the model and in the terms of the organic acts, approved September 9, 1850, called the compromise measures."" 4 App., Nos. 790, 792, 851, 871. 5 App., Nos. 797, 800, 807, 823, 828, 852b, 858, 864, 869b, 874b, 877, 894b, 896, 912, 918, 923, 933, 942, 971. In 1864 Mr. Saulsbury presented the same in his substitute resolutions for the thirteenth amendment. App., No. 1005. Like the Hartford convention amendment, ante, par. 93. on the journals. If such bill should be vetoed by the President it should require a three-fourths vote of all the members to pass it.1 Later, Mr. Florence introduced a proposition simply providing for the admission of a State when it had fulfilled the conditions, with or without slavery, as its constitution should direct, and it further provided that if the President refused to admit such Territory as a State this article should not deprive Congress of the power to admit such State. As has been previously stated, the amendment introduced by Mr. Douglas provided that the status of each Territory in respect to servitude should remain unchanged until the Territory should have a population of 50,000 white inhabitants. When this number was secured, the white male citizens should proceed to form a constitutional government for themselves, and exercise all the rights of self government. And such new State should be entitled to one Delegate in the Senate, to be chosen by the legisjature, and one Delegate in the House, to be chosen by the people. When such new State should contain the requisite population for a member of Congress, it should be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as its constitution should provide at the time of its admission.3 111. ACQUIREMENT OF NEW TERRITORY. Other sections of the article just previously mentioned, as introduced by Mr. Douglas, prohibited the acquirement by the United States of any more territory, except by treaty or by the concurrent vote of two-thirds of each House of Congress. The occurrence of a case like that of New Mexico was to be guarded against by the provision that in the event of the annexation of new territory. "The status thereof in respect to servitude shall remain the same as at the time of its acquisition, until it shall be formed into a new State." But the annexation of Cuba was distinctly intimated in the clause: "The area of all new States are to be as nearly uniform in size as practicable, and shall not be less than 60,000 nor more than 80,000 square miles, except in case of islands."4 1 App., No. 826. 2 App., No. 877. 3 App., No. 837. No. 869b. similar to the latter provision, introduced by Mr. Douglas. 4 App., Nos. 839, 840. An amendment similar to the first part of the foregoing was intro duced by Mr. Etheridge of Tennessee shortly after this. App., No. 859. |