And Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, at a later day, said:--

“Under the Constitution, each State of itself ought to provide

for the rendition of all fugitives from labor to their masters.

_This was certainly the design of the Constitution._”[358]

Such are some of the authorities, judicial and political, by which

Congressional power over this subject is denied. And yet, in the face

of all authority, and in defiance of reason, Congress assumed this

power. It was done at the demand of Slavery, and for the protection

of Slavery. Of course, such an assumption of undelegated power was a

usurpation at the time, and is a usurpation still,--doubly hateful,

when it is considered that it is a usurpation in the name of Slavery.

It is hard to think that Congress was driven to unconstitutional

assumption in such a cause, and that, contrary to sovereign rules of

interpretation, it leaned to Slavery rather than to Freedom. But the

time has come at last when it may recover the attitude belonging to it

under the Constitution.

In advising the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, it is enough to show

that it is founded on usurpation by Congress of power not granted by

the Constitution. But, even admitting the power, a slight examination

will show that it has been executed in defiance of the Constitution.

The constitutional objections to the Fugitive Slave Act are abundant.

It is not too much to say, that in every section and at every point it

is repugnant to admitted principles of Constitutional Law.

Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 10 (of 20) · 第 92 / 99 题