er following, and were
approved by President Fillmore.

It remains to speak briefly of the Fugitive-Slave Act. It was
odious to the North in the extreme. United States Commissioners
were provided for to act instead of state magistrates, on whom
jurisdiction was attempted to be conferred by the Act of 1793.
_Ex-parte_ testimony was made sufficient to determine the identity
of the negro claimed, and the affidavit of an agent or attorney
was made sufficient. The alleged fugitive was not permitted, under
any circumstances, to testify. He was denied the right to trial
by jury. The cases were to be heard in a summary manner. The
claimant was authorized to use all necessary force to remove the
fugitive adjudged a slave. All process of any court or judge was
forbidden to molest the claimant, his agent or attorney, in carrying
away the adjudged slave. United States marshals and their deputies
were authorized to summon bystanders as a _posse comitatus_; and
all good citizens were commanded, by the act, to aid and assist in
the prompt and efficient execution of the law; all under heavy
penalty for failing to do so. The officers were liable, in a civil
suit, for the value of the negro if he escaped. Heavy fine or
imprisonment was to be imposed for hindering or preventing the
arrest, or for rescuing or attempting to rescue, or for harboring
or concealing the fugitive, and, if any person was found guilty of
causing his escape, a further fine of $1000 by way of civil damages
to the owner. In case the commissioner adjudged the negro was the
claimant's slave, his fee was fixed at $10, and if he discharged
the negro, it was only $5. The claimant had a right, in case of
apprehended danger, to require the officer arresting the fugitive
to remove him to the State from whence he fled, with authority to
employ as many persons to aid him as he might deem necessary, the
expense to be paid out of the United States Treasury. This act
became a law September 18, 1850. The law contained so many odious
provisions against all principles of natural justice and judicial
precedents that it could not be executed in many places in the
North. The consciences of civilized men revolted against it, and
the Abolitionists did not fail to magnify its injustice; on the
other hand, the pro-slavery agitators saw in its imperfect execution
new and additional grounds for complaint against the North.

What, then, was intended to be a settlement of the