makes and unmakes laws, and which for a time, was passive and acquiescent, now lifts itself everywhere in the States where the act is sought to be enforced, and demands a change. Already three States, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Michigan, by formal resolutions presented to the Senate, have concurred in this demand. The tribunals of law are joining at last with the people. The Superior Court of Cincinnati has denied the power of Congress over this subject. And now, almost while I speak, comes the solemn judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin a sovereign State of this Union made after elaborate argument, on successive occasions, before a single judge, and then before the whole bench, declaring this act to be a violation of the Constitution. In response to public opinion, broad and general, if not universal at the North, swelling alike from village and city, from the seaboard and lakes judically attested, legislatively declared, and represented, also, by numerous petitions from good men without distinction of party in response to this Public Opinion, as well as in obedience to my own fixed convictions, I deem it my duty not to lose this opportunity of pressing the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act once more upon the Senate. I move, sir, to strike out all after the enacting clause in the pending Bill, and insert instead thereof these words:

“That the Act of Congress, approved September 18, 1850, usually known as the Fugitive Slave Act,' be, and the same hereby is repealed."

And on this motion I ask the yeas and

nays.

When Mr. Sumner took his seat, he was followed by Mr. Butler of South Carolina, who put a question to him, which was the occasion of the following dialogue.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator asks me a question, and I answer, frankly, that no temptation, no inducement, would draw me in any way to sanction the return of any man to Slavery. But then I leave to others to speak for themselves. In this respect, I speak for myself.

Mr. BUTLER. I do not rise now at all to question the right of the gentleman from Massachusetts to hold his seat, under the obligation of the Constitution of the United States, with the opinions which he has expressed; but, if I understand him, he means that, whether this law, or that law, or any other law prevails, he disregards the obligations of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. SUMNER. Not at all. That I never said. I recognize the obligations of the Constitution.

Mr. BUTLER. But, sir, I will ask that gentleman one question: if it devolved upon him as a representative of Massachusetts, all Federal laws being put out of the way, would he recommend any law for the delivery of a Fugitive Slave under the Constitution of the United States ?

Mr. SUMNER.
Mr. BUTLER.

Never.

I knew that. Now, sir, I have got exactly what is the truth, and what I intend shall go forth to the Southern States.

WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 28TH FEBRU ARY, 1855, ON INTRODUCING A BILL TO SECURE WAGES TO

SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK.

On the 28th February, 1855, Mr. Sumner, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a Bill to secure wages to seamen in case of wreck, which was read twice by its title.

MR. SUMNER. - In introducing this Bill, I desire to make a brief explanation, which shall, at least, be a record of my views with regard to it.

The Bill proposes an amelioration of the existing maritime law in respect to the wages of merchant scamen, which, so far as England is concerned, has already been made by Act of Parliament, and which, in our country, can only be accomplished by Act of Congress.

By the existing maritime law, the seaman's wages depend upon a technical rule, which sometimes occasions hardships. Freight is compendiously said to be the mother of wages. In conformity with this fanciful idea, the wages are made to depend upon the earning of freight, unless the freight has been waived by agree

ment of the owner, or unless the voyage or freight be lost by the negligence, fraud, or misconduct of the owner or master, or be voluntarily abandoned. In case of wreck, the sailor has simply the chance of something, under the name of salvage, if the fragments of the ship saved happen to be of any value. But if the loss be total, then the sailor is without remedy. In the wrecks which occur with melancholy frequency on our churlish winter coast, this hardship adds even to the sorrows of disaster. Thus, as in a case which has actually arisen, a crew may commence service at Calcutta, may navigate the Indian Ocean, double the Cape of Good Hope, and bring their ship safely to the sight of land, and then, by the total loss of the ship and cargo, from the acknowledged perils of the sea, they may lose everything—even their right to wages -and may find themselves in a strange port, the prey of poverty. Nor can any merit, either throughout the protracted voyage, or in the hour of peril and shipwreck, prevent the operation of this technical rule.

There is also another circumstance which constrains the poor sailor. The owner may insure his ship, and also his freight, so that he may lose nothing but the premium he pays; but the sailor is not allowed to protect himself by insurance from the loss of his wages. His loss is, therefore, literally total.

Now, this technical rule, which fastens the wages of the sailor to the fortunes of the vessel, or, in other words, makes the right dependent on the successful issue of the enterprise for which he is hired, must be considered an off-shoot of the medieval maritime law. It is not to be found in the Roman law, nor in the maritime legislation of the Eastern Empire, nor in that

early compilation which goes under the name of the Rhodian law. An eminent American judge, who has shed great light upon maritime jurisprudence - I refer to the learned and able Judge Ware, of the District Court of Maine has said, in a judicial opinion, (see The Dawn, Daveis's Rep. 133,) that it owes its origin to the necessities and peculiar hazards which maritime commerce was compelled to encounter in the middle ages, when to the dangers of the winds and waves were added the more formidable perils of piracy and robbery. The rule having been thus established, has been preserved in the maritime jurisprudence of Europe, when the special exigencies in which it had its birth have ceased to exist. It has outlived the circumstances and excuses of its origin; and now survives to vex, oppress and disappoint the most needy, if not the most meritorious, of all who are concerned in the business of the seas.

This hard rule survives with us, but not everywhere. The greatest commercial nation of the world has led the way in its abolition, and set an example to the United States. The Act of Parliament of 7th and 8th Victoria, chap. 112, sec. 17 (at the close) — called "the Merchant Seamen's Act"-provides that

"In all cases of wreck or loss of the ship, every surviving seaman shall be entitled to his wages up to the period of the wreck or loss of the ship, whether such ship shall or shall not have earned freight; provided the seaman shall produce a certificate from the master, or chief surviving officer of the ship, to the effect that he had exerted himself to the utmost to save the ship, cargo and stores."

But the sailor was not completely protected by this provision. Experience in England showed that the