escape.

Perhaps Mr. Sumner would seek to justify himself by declaring that the
language _fugitive from services_ does not include fugitive slaves. If
so, we reply that the Vermont judge, whose infamous decision he
approves, had no such fine pretext. It is Mr. Sumner, as we have seen,
who first suggested this most excellent method of reconciling conscience
with treachery to the Constitution. Though he professes the most
profound respect for that instrument, he deliberately sets to work to
undermine one of its most clear and unequivocal mandates. He does not,
like Mr. Seward, openly smite the Constitution with his hand, or
contemptuously kick it with his foot. _He betrays it with a kiss._

Mr. Sumner admires the conduct of the Vermont judge; but he can heap the
most frantic abuse on the acts of the best men America has produced.
Though they be the deliberate public acts of a Clay, or a Calhoun, or a
Webster, or a GEORGE WASHINGTON, his language is not the less violent,
nor his raving vituperation the less malignant. In regard to the
Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, he says: "And still further, as if to do a
deed which should 'make heaven weep, all earth amazed,' this same
Congress, in disregard of all the cherished safeguards of freedom, has
passed a most cruel, unchristian, devilish act." The great difficulty
under which Mr. Sumner labors, and which all the energy of his soul
struggles to surmount, is to find language violent enough in which to
denounce this "foul enactment," this "detestable and heaven-defying
bill," this "monster act," which "sets at naught the best principles of
the Constitution and the very laws of God!"

Now, this bill, let it be remembered, is liable to no objection which
may not be urged against the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793. It will not be
denied, indeed, that if the one of these laws be unconstitutional so
also is the other, and that both must stand or fall together. Let it
also be borne in mind that, as the one received the support of a Clay,
and a Calhoun, and a Webster, so the other received the sanction and the
signature of George Washington. Yet, in the face of these facts, Mr.
Sumner does not moderate his rage. They only seem to increase the
intensity and the fury of his wrath. "The soul sickens," he cries, "in
the contemplation of this legalized outrage. In the dreary annals of the
past there are many acts of shame--there are many ordinances of
monarchs, and laws which have become a byword