acks of the North, seek to invade the rights of the South. We
have no sympathy with either class of kidnappers.

Is it not wonderful that, while the abolitionists of the North create
and keep up so great a clamor about the danger their free blacks are in,
they do so little, and ask so little, either by legislation or
otherwise, in order to protect them, except in such manner, or by such
legislation, as shall aim a deadly blow at the rights and interests of
the South? If they really wish to protect their free blacks, and if the
laws are not already sufficient for that purpose, we are more than
willing to assist in the passage of more efficient ones. But we are not
willing to abandon the great right which the Constitution spreads, like
an impenetrable shield, over Southern property to the amount of sixteen
hundred millions of dollars.

The complaint in regard to the want of protection for the free blacks of
the North is without just foundation. In the case of Jack _v._ Martin,
decided in the Court of Errors of New York, we find the following
language, which is here exactly in point:--"It was contended on the
argument of this cause, with great zeal and earnestness, that, under the
law of the United States, a freeman might be dragged from his family and
home into captivity. This is supposing an extreme case, as I believe it
is not pretended any such ever has occurred, or that any complaint of
that character has ever been made; at all events, I cannot regard it as
a very potent argument. The same position might as well be taken in the
case of a fugitive from justice. It might be assumed that he was an
innocent man, and entitled to be tried by a jury of the State where he
was arrested, to ascertain whether he had violated the laws of the State
from which he fled; whereas the fact is, the executive of this State
would feel bound to deliver up the most exalted individual in this
State, (however well satisfied he might be of his innocence,) if a
requisition was made upon him by the executive of another State."

In the same case, when before the Supreme Court of New York, the court
said: "In the case under review, the proceedings are before a magistrate
of our own State, presumed to possess a sympathy with his
fellow-citizens, and _where, upon the supposition that a freeman is
arrested, he may readily procure the evidence of his freedom_. If the
magistrate should finally err in granting the certificate, _the party
can still res