thy Son
Possess his universal Throne,
And rule the nations with his rod;
He is our Judge, and he our God.

"By the _law of this Commonwealth_," added Mr. Curtis, "_Slavery is
not immoral._ By the Supreme law of this Commonwealth Slavery is not
only recognized as a valid institution, but to a certain extent is
incorporated into our own law. Before you [the court] rise from your
seats, you may be called upon by the master of a fugitive slave, to
grant a certificate ... which _will put the whole force of the
Commonwealth at his disposal, to remove his slave from our
Territory_."

Gentlemen of the Jury, that was conquering his prejudices "with
alacrity;" it was obeying the fugitive slave bill fourteen years
before it was heard of.

He adds still further, by quotation, "I have no doubt but the citizen
of a Slave State has a right to pass, upon business or pleasure,
through any of the States attended by his slaves--and his right to
reclaim his slave would be unquestioned. An escape from the attendance
upon the person of his master, while on a journey through a free
State, should be considered as an escape from the State where the
master had a right of citizenship."

Mr. Charles P. Curtis thus sustained his kinsman:--

"Is that to be considered immoral which the Court is bound
to assist in doing? _It is not for us to denounce as_
legally _immoral a practice which is permitted_ and
sanctioned _by the supreme law of the land_!" "It is said
the practice of Slavery is corrupting in its influence on
public morals. But the practice of bringing slaves here was
much more common thirty years ago than now. If this practice
be so corrupting, why is it tolerated in other States?"...
"The law of New York allows even foreigners to go there with
their slaves; and have the morals of that State suffered in
consequence? In Pennsylvania the law is similar, but where
is the evidence of its pernicious influence?" "As to the
_right to using them_, [the slaves voluntarily brought here
by their masters,] _notwithstanding the supposed horror at
such an admission_, the legislatures of New York and
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and New Jersey, have actually
enacted statutes allowing precisely that privilege."[185]

[Footnote 185: Med. Case, 1836.]

But the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held otherwise. Med was
declared free. Chief Justice Shaw co