| OCR Text |
Show 834 LIBERTY AND SI~AVERY. would be its design. It was so uudeJ-stood by every member of the convention; for there was not a man there who possessed tho capacity to mistmdeJ-stand so plain a mattet·; and it has been so understood by cve1·y man, of all parties and all factions, from that day down to the present. Not one of the hired advocates who have been employed, in different States, to argue against the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law, bas ever bad the unblushing efti·ontcry to contend that the clause iu question is not applicable to fugitive slaves. Nay, more, until Mr. Sumner appeared, tho frantic zeal of no abolitionist had ever so completely besotted his intellect as to permit him to take such ground. By Dr. Channing, by Mr. Seward, and by Mr. Chase, such application of the words in question is unhesitatingly admitted; and hen co we dismiss Mr. Sumner•s discovery with the contempt it deserves. But to return. "The provision," says Mr. Sumner, "which showed itself thus tardily, and was so slightly noticed in the National Convention, was neglected in most of the contemporaneous discussions before the people." No wonder; for it was merely declaratory of the "customary or common law" of that day. "In the Conven- TIIE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 335 tions of South Carolina, North Cm-olina, and . Virginia," he admits, "it was commended as securing important rights, though on this point there was a diJrerencc of opinion. In the Virginia Convention, an eminent chamcter,-Mr. George Mason,-with others, expressly declared that there was 'no security of property coming within this section.'" Now, we shall not stickle about the fact that Mr. Sumner has not given the very words of Mr. Mason, since he has given them in substance. But yet he has given them in such a way, and in such a connection, as to make a false impression. The words of Mr. Mason, taken in their proper connection, are as follows: "We have no security for the property of that kind (slaves) which we already have. There is no clause in this Constitution to secure it, for !hey rnay lay such a lax as will amount lo manumission." This shows his position, not as it is misrepresented by Mr. Sumner, but as it stands in his own words. If slave property may be rendered worthless by the taxation of Congress, how could it be secured by a clause which enables the owner to reclaim it? It would not be worili reclaiming. Such was the argument ar.d true position of Mr. George Mason. |
