municipal corporation shall permit the rights of a
slave owner to be disregarded by the rescue of a slave, it not only
fails to perform its duty under the Constitution, but becomes an
active participant in the crime. Shall the consequences of its own
fault be visited upon the people of the whole country? Those who
acknowledge and carry out their obligations under the Constitution, as
well as those who do not? This would inflict a punishment upon the
innocent for the crime of the guilty. It is not right to leave it in
that way. It would present an inducement to these violations of law
which the provision is intended to prevent. We ought to make the
guilty party pay the penalty.
Mr. HACKLEMAN:--If such a proposition were to come from a free State,
the mover would be charged with attempting to destroy all hope that
the committee's report could be adopted by the people. However, if the
friends of the report are willing to adopt it, I do not know that I
ought to object. It places the Government in a position where it is
bound under the Constitution to prosecute a municipal corporation for
the acts of its individual members. It is certainly novel, and
introduces a new system into the jurisprudence of the country. Is the
mover serious in his proposition?
Mr. BARRINGER:--I am certainly serious. I would like to hear some
substantial argument against my motion.
The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. BARRINGER, resulted
as follows:
AYES.--Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas--3.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, and Iowa--17.
And the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DENT:--I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Maryland. I
consider the amendment as eminently just and proper.
Mr. CLAY:--I dissent from the vote of Kentucky.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I have an amendment which I intend to offer at
some time, and I may as well propose it now. The people of the free
States have complained, and not without good reason, that one clause
in the Constitution is not carried into effect in some of the
slaveholding States. Their complaints are similar to those made on the
part of the South, which it is the purpose of the seventh section to
remove. If there have been instances at the North where mobs and
riotous assemblies have obstructed the administ
|