tion, either oral or by affidavit before any other magistrate, that the person seized was really a fugitive, and did owe labor as alleged, was to grant a certificate to that effect to the claimant, this certificate to serve as sufficient warrant for the removal of the fugitive to the state whence he had fled. Any person obstructing in any way such seizure or removal, or harboring or concealing any fugitive after notice, was liable to a penalty of $500, to be recovered by the claimant.
This act, which originated with the senate, seems to have passed the house without any debate. At the time of its passage, and for many years after, the above provisions attracted little attention. At a later period, they were denounced not only as exceedingly harsh and peremptory, opening a door to great abuses, but as unconstitutional, in subjecting that most important of all juridical questions, the right of personal liberty, to a summary jurisdiction, without trial by jury, or any appeal on points of law. Availing themselves of a decision of the supreme federal court as to the want of power in congress to impose duties on state officers, most of the free states passed acts forbidding their magistrates, under severe penalties, to take any part in carrying this law into execution; and it was thus substantially reduced to a dead letter.[1]
In 1194, a convention was held in Philadelphia of delegates from all, the abolition societies in the country. A memorial was drawn up by this convention in such a manner as to avoid constitutional objections, praying congress to do whatever they could for the suppression of the slave-trade. This memorial, with several Quaker petitions, was referred to a select committee, and the bill which they reported passed with little opposition. It prohibited the fitting out of vessels in the United States for supplying any foreign countries with slaves, under penalty of forfeiture of the vessel and a fine of $2,000.
In 1797, the subject of slavery was again brought before congress, by the presentation of a petition from the yearly meeting at Philadelphia of the Quakers. Among other matters, the memorial complained that certain persons of the African race, to the number of one hundred and thirty-four, set free by the Quakers, besides others whose cases were not so particularly known, had been reduced again into cruel bondage under the authority of an ex post facto law passed for that purpose by the state of North Carolina, in 1777, authorizing the seizure and resale, as slaves, of certain emancipated negroes.
Any action upon this petition was vehemenently opposed by Harper, of S. C., who complained that this was not the first, second, nor third time that the house had been troubled by similar applications, which had a very dangerous tendency. This and every other legislature ought to set their faces against memorials complaining of what it was impossible to alter.
Thacher, of Massachusetts, suggested, in reply, that where persons considered themselves injured, they would not be likely to leave off petitioning till the house took some action upon their petitions. If the Quakers considered
- ↑ Hildreth's History United States.
