Volume 8 — NO RECOGNITION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL.

Motion and Remarks in the Senate, February 25, 1862.

February 25th, the Senate having under consideration a bill, reported by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, to confiscate the property and free the slaves of Rebels, an incidental question arose on the recognition of the Fugitive Slave Bill, when Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

I desire to move an amendment, which I believe will carry out the idea of the Senator from Kansas. I concur with that Senator in all he has said in relation to the Fugitive Slave Bill. I have never called it a law, hardly an act. I regard it simply as a bill, still a bill, having no authority under the Constitution. There is no unsoundness in that instrument out of which such excrescence can grow. That is my idea; I believe it is the idea of the Senator from Kansas. Therefore I concur with him in any criticism upon legislation seeming even in the most indirect way to recognize the existence of a thing which can have, thank God, under the Constitution, when properly interpreted, no legal existence. Therefore, if the language introduced in this bill has the effect which the Senator supposes, if it does in any way recognize the existence of that bill, certainly I am against it; and when I listened to the remarks of the Senator, and critically examined the language, I must say I feared that there was some implication or other on our part in favor of that bill. I therefore propose an amendment which shall remove all such implication or possibility of recognition on our part, while, at the same time, I believe it will carry out completely, adequately, in every respect, the idea of the Senator from Illinois in the measure now under consideration. The language here is as follows.

“And whenever any person claiming to be entitled to the service or labor of any other person shall seek to enforce such claim, he shall, in the first instance, and before any order for the surrender of the person whose service is claimed, establish not only his title to such service, as now provided by law, but also that he is, and has been, during the existing Rebellion, loyal to the Government of the United States.”

I propose to strike out all after the word “before,” in the sixteenth line, down to the word “that,” in the nineteenth line, being these words,—

“any order for the surrender of the person whose service is claimed, establish not only his title to such service, as now provided by law, but also”—

and instead thereof insert—

“proceeding with the trial of his claim, satisfactorily prove”—

so that the sentence will read,—

“he shall, in the first instance, and before proceeding with the trial of his claim, satisfactorily prove that he is, and has been, during the existing Rebellion, loyal to the Government of the United States.”

This language, as I believe, carries out completely the idea of the Senator from Illinois in the measure before us. I think it also carries out the idea of the Senator from Kansas. It gives all proper efficacy to the language of the statute; at the same time it does not compromise any of us, in this age of Christian light, by a new recognition, direct or indirect, of the Fugitive Slave Bill.

Mr. Cowan. How long will that provision last?

Mr. Sumner. As long as this statute lasts.

Mr. Cowan. Then a person claiming one hundred years from this time would open his cause by showing that he was loyal during this Rebellion!

Mr. Sumner. I hope so, certainly,—forever.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill never became a law. Another bill on the same subject from the House of Representatives was adopted, with the following title, “To suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of Rebels, and for other purposes,” and approved by the President, July 17, 1862.[207]