Part 5

I take the facts to be these:--Mr. Davis, being a counsellor of this Court, and possessed of no small sympathy for persons in peril of their freedom, when it was known that a person claimed as a fugitive slave was arrested, and in a few hours, perhaps, to be sent into eternal servitude, Mr. Davis steps over to my office and suggests to me that we offer our services as counsel. He leaves his business, which is large, while five courts are in session in this building. He sits here that whole Saturday forenoon by the prisoner, to whom he is recommended by Mr. Morton. He is twice spoken of to Mr. Riley by the prisoner, as one of his counsel. He sits from eleven to two o'clock, absorbed in this case, his feelings necessarily excited, (and I should be ashamed of him if they were not excited,) but his intellectual powers devoted to the points of law in this case, and your Honor knows that the points are various and new. By the courtesy of the Marshal, the counsel were permitted to remain here, because the Marshal had not yet determined where to keep his prisoner. They remained until the time for the prisoner's meal. When the business is over, they leave. Some one must go out first, and somebody must go out last. It is nothing more nor less than the old rule of "The Devil take the hindermost." Mr. List leaves the Court-room--Mr. Warren goes out. All the officers are to go to dinner, and the door is to be opened and closed each time. Dinner is to be brought in. Twenty times that door is to be opened.

In the mean time about that door is collected a small number of persons of the same color with the person then at the bar, very likely, perhaps, to make a rescue, some advising against it, and some for it, with considerable excitement. Mr. Davis slides out of that passage-way and goes to his office. Mr. Wright is prevented from going by the crowd. Not a blow is struck. Not the hair of a man's head is injured. The prisoner walks off with his friends, straight out of this Court-House, and no more than twenty or thirty persons have done the deed. Three men outside of the door could have prevented the rescue. Mr. Riley did not suspect it. Mr. Warren did not suspect it. Mr. Homer did not suspect it. Mr. Wright did not suspect it. Nobody suspected it. The sudden action of a small body of men, unexpected, and only successful because unexpected, accomplished it. He is out of the reach of the officers in a moment, and there's the end of the whole business. No premeditation! No plan! Counsel knowing nothing about it! Nobody suspecting it, and the whole thing over in one minute!

But, may it please the Commissioner, the law is violated--the outrage is done. This is a case of great political importance, and the deputy Marshal thinks it his duty, (I think in rather an extraordinary manner,) instantly, before any charge is made against him, before any official inquiry is started, to issue a long affidavit, sent post haste to every newspaper, and hurried on to Washington,--Congress in session,--a delicate question there,--Northern and Southern men arrayed against each other. Then comes an alarm. Then the Executive shrieks out a proclamation.

A standing army is to be ordered to Boston. All good citizens are to be commanded to sustain the laws. The country thinks that mob law is rioting in Boston--that we all go armed to the teeth. The Chief Magistrate of fifteen millions of people must launch against us the thunders from his mighty hand.

In the meantime, we poor, innocent citizens are just as quiet, just as peaceable, just as confident in our own laws, just as capable of taking care of ourselves on Saturday evening as on Friday morning. Only some frightened innocents, like the goose, the duck and the turkey in the fable, say the sky is falling, and they must go and tell the king!

But we can all see now that there was too much alarm. We begin already to feel the reaction. A state of things has been created over this country entirely unwarranted by the circumstances. And I trust that the Commissioner will be able to say to the country, say to His Excellency the President of the United States, say to the world, that nothing of this sort has occurred; that there has been no preconcerted action; that the Marshal cleared his room, and every body went out peaceably; that nobody expected the rescue; that there was no crowd in the court-room; but the blacks, feeling themselves oppressed and periled by this law, standing at that door, behind which their friend and companion is held a prisoner, rush in, almost without resistance, carry off their prisoner, and not a blow is struck, not a weapon drawn, not a man injured. That is the end of it. There is no need of standing armies in Boston! And, above all, we trust that the Commissioner will be able to say to the world, to the President, and to Congress, that this effort was the unpremeditated, irresistible impulse of a small body of men, acting under the sense and sight of oppression and impending horrid calamities, against the advice of some of their own number; and that no gentleman of education, no counsellor of this court sworn to obey the law, has instigated these poor men to its overthrow. Massachusetts is not in a state of civil war, and her most valued citizens are not engaged in overturning the foundations of civil government.

Why should the criminal proceedings of this day have taken place at all? What is the evidence? The learned District Attorney thought proper to suggest to the Court that there was further evidence which might be presented in another stage of this proceeding. That, I am sure, fell with as little weight upon the mind of the Commissioner as it would if we, on the other hand, had said, as is the fact, that we have a large amount of evidence that might yet be presented in behalf of Mr. Davis. This is not a game of brag! It is not upon evidence that is not here, but upon evidence that is here, that this case is to be decided. Here has been mortified pride, here has been fear, here has been the dread spectre of Executive power, stalking across the scene, appalling the hearts, and disabling the judgments of men. Excited men suspect everybody. Every person who ever attended a public meeting is suspected. A political party is to be put under the ban. There is nothing so rash as fear. There is nothing so indiscriminating as fear. There is nothing so cruel as fear, unless it be mortified pride--and here they both concurred.

Instructions come from a distant Executive power that knows nothing of the facts. And the fear of that power and patronage is the reason, may it please the Commissioner, why suddenly, on Saturday or Sunday, before the subject can be examined and the truth ascertained, a warrant is got out against a person of the character and position of Mr. Davis. But when we look at things in their natural light, when there is a calm investigation of the facts, I think the Government will see and regret its rashness and delusion.

I understand, may it please the Commissioner, that there is to be a great deal done on this case of an unusual character. We have been threatened with the reading of newspapers; and public meetings, and political principles are to be charged as treasonable. Yes! political considerations are brought to bear. We cannot tell what limit is to be put to this. Therefore, not knowing what is before me, having no ordinary rules of procedure to guide me, the Commissioner will allow me to try to anticipate the attacks as well as I can. For having had it intimated that the argument will not follow legal evidence, but extracts from newspapers--

_Mr. Lunt._ That is very strong. I have offered you everything of that kind that I have to say.

_The Commissioner._ The gentleman proposes to read as part of his argument, an article from the newspapers.

_Mr. Dana._ He proposes to read it as evidence, to affect the mind of the court on the facts. I cannot object to it now. When it is offered, I have no doubt it will be properly met by the Commissioner.

I say, not knowing what is to come upon me, I must take a pretty wide margin. In that view of the case, it will not be improper if I state what I understand to be the true position of Mr. Davis, with reference to the principles involved in this case.

May it please your Honor, we are not subjects of a monarchy, which has put laws upon us that we have no hand in making. I do not hesitate to say, here, that if the act of 1850 had been imposed upon us, a subject people, by a monarchy, we should have rebelled as one man. I do not hesitate to say that if this law had been imposed upon us as a province, by a mother country, without our participation in the act, we should have rebelled as one man.

But we are a republic. We make our own laws. We choose our own lawgivers. We obey the laws we make, and we make the laws we obey. This law was constitutionally passed, though not constitutional, we think, in its provisions. It is the law until repealed or judicially abrogated.

Who passed this law? It was passed by the vote of the representative of our own city, whom we sent there by our own votes. It was advocated by our own Senator. It was passed by the aid of northern votes. Where is the remedy? It strikes me that the statement of the case shows where the remedy is. It is in the hands of the people. It is not in standing behind and urging on poor men to put themselves in the cannon's mouth. It is political courage that is wanted. Courage shown in speech, through the pen, and through the ballot-box.

But be it known that all I have said is on the idea that this is a repealable law. If we are to be told that this is a part of the organic law, sunk down deep into national compact, and never to be repealed,--then neither you nor I can answer for the consequences. But now we can say that it is nothing but an act, that may be repealed tomorrow. Take from us that great argument, and what can the defendant and myself do? What can the defendant say to discourage colored men from the use of force? You take from him his great means of influence. I never have been one of those, and I think the defendant has never been one of those, who would throw out all their strength in denunciations against Southern men born to their institution of slavery, and pass over those Northern men who volunteer to bring this state of things upon us.

But as a citizen, within constitutional limits, addressing his fellow-citizens at Faneuil Hall, (where I think we have still a right to go,) discouraging his fellow-citizens from violence, writing in the newspapers and arguing in the courts of law to the same purpose, saying to the poor trembling negro, I will give you a habeas corpus! I will give you a writ of personal replevin! I will aid in your defence! There is no need of violence! That is the position of the defendant. If he held any other position, if the defendant had made up his mind that here was a case for revolution, that here was a case for civil war and bloodshed--if I know anything of the spirit of the defendant, he would have exhibited himself in a far different manner. He would have resigned his position as a counsellor of this court, with all its profits and honors; he would put himself at the head instead of urging on from behind a class of ignorant, excited men, against the execution of the laws.

For he knows perfectly well--an educated man as he is, who has studied his logic and metaphysics, and who is not unfamiliar with the principles of the social system--that an intentional, forcible resistance to law is, in its nature, revolution. And I take it, no citizen has the right forcibly to violate the law, unless he is prepared for revolution. I know that these nice metaphysic rays, as Burke says, piercing into the dense medium of common life, are refracted and distorted from their course. But an educated man, with a disciplined mind, knows that he has no right to encourage others to forcible resistance, unless he is ready to take the risks of bringing upon the community all the consequences of civil war. We talk about a higher law on the subject of resistance to the law. And there is a higher law. But what is it? It is the right to passive submission to penalties, or, it is the active ultimate right of revolution. It is the right our fathers took to themselves, as an ultimate remedy for unsupportable evils. It means, war and bloodshed. It is a case altogether out of law. I do not know a man educated to the law that takes any other ground.

I suppose your Honor did not misapprehend my last remark and that no one did. When I said resistance to the law, I did not mean to include resistance for the purpose of raising a constitutional issue. If an unconstitutional tax is levied, you refuse to pay it and raise the constitutional question. This right seems to be lost sight of. Persons seem to think we are to obey statutes and not the constitution. I understand that the duty to the constitution is above the duty to the statutes. And therefore I say, by resistance to the law, I mean combined, systematic, forcible resistance to the law for the purpose of overcoming all law, or a particular law in all cases; defying the government to arms, and not for the purpose of raising a constitutional issue. For this is within the power, nay, it is sometimes the duty of a citizen. I do not know a position in which a person does a greater good to his fellow citizens than when he does, as John Hampden did on the question of ship money, raise, by refusal to obey, the constitutional issue. And in doing this, he ought to have the approbation of the Courts and their ministers, and of every person true to the constitution and the laws.

At the same time that it is important to maintain all these principles, which are the principles of the defendant, I also think this is a season when we must be very careful that certain opposite doctrines are not carried too far. I think it is a time, this day, when it becomes a judicial tribunal to see to it, that this extraordinary combination of Executive power and patronage; this alarm and this anxiety at head quarters, does not lead to a violation of private rights and personal liberty. I think there is a pressure brought to bear against the free expression of popular opinion, against the exercise of private judgment--a pressure felt even in the courts of law, intimidating counsel, overawing witnesses, and making the defence of liberty a peril. There is the pressure of fear of political disfranchisement, of social ostracism, which weighs upon this community like a night-mare. We feel it everywhere. We know that we make sacrifices when we act in this cause. We feel that we suffer under it. And if this course is persevered in, I believe that if a man stands at that bar charged with being a fugitive slave, he will find it difficult to obtain counsel in this city of Boston, except from a small body of men peculiarly situated.

I think that two years ago no man could have stood before this bar, with perpetual servitude impending over him, but almost the entire bar would have come forward for his defence. No man would have dared to decline. But because of this pressure of political and mercantile interests, it is said that Henry Long found it difficult to obtain counsel in New York. His friends sent to Boston to obtain an eminent man here, willing to brave public feeling by acting as a counsellor in a case of slavery. I do believe that this danger is to be regarded. For there is, at times, as much servility in democracies as in monarchies. I was struck with the remark made by the Earl of Carlisle, in his late letter, that there is in the United States an absolute submission to the supposed popular opinion of the hour, greater than he ever knew in any other country in the world. This is something in which no American can take pride.

The history of democratic governments shows that they may be as arbitrary as any absolute monarchy. Athens and Paris have, under democratic forms, been the standing illustrations of tyranny and arbitrary rule the world over. Those are free governments, in which there is a government of just laws, whether wrought out through a mixed government, as in England, or wrought out as here by the people themselves, and cast into representative forms. And now we see before us the anomaly, the mortifying contradiction, that it is in Great Britain, and not in the republic of the United States, with our venerated Declaration of Independence, that the great principles of Liberty and Fraternity are practically carried out. I do not mean to reflect upon any person or persons south or north of a certain geographical line. Our ancestors have eaten sour grapes, and their childrens' teeth are set on edge. We are all under the same condemnation. We are all responsible for these laws--for slavery, in some form or other. Our constitutional compact makes us responsible, and we cannot escape from our share of the evil and the wrong.

But I must leave these generalities, and pass to the particular points of this case. This is the first case of its kind that has occurred. The decision in this case by the Commissioner, though not matter of precedent, yet goes to the profession, the press, and into the private records of the country. Therefore we may be excused if we pay some considerable attention to the points of law involved.

In the first place, it should be borne in mind that a fugitive slave is not a criminal.

A few years ago, it was thought in Massachusetts that the pursuing of slaves was criminal. I thank God, it is not yet decided that the escaping from slavery is criminal. It is a mere question of property under this act. This law has recognized certain property in slaves, claimed in a certain manner, in the free States. It is a mere question of property. The Southern man has certain property in his slave. That property we do not here recognise. But if the property escapes, and he pursues it, it is to be recognised in this court. Consequently, when a Southern man comes here and seizes a person as his property, he takes him at his own risk, a risk which every man takes in seizing any thing as his property. If he seizes the wrong property, any person who owns it, may resist him, or resist his officer armed with a warrant. This has been ruled in various cases.

Your Honor recollects in the 8th Pickering, the case of the Commonwealth vs. Kennard. There the writ was placed in the hands of the officer, to go and attach some property of the defendant. He attached certain property which he thought belonged to the defendant. He showed his warrant, but the true owners put him, neck and heels, out of the house. They were indicted, but the Court sustained them in their act.

In a civil action, if the wrong person, the wrong horse, or the wrong slave, is taken, then the owner of the property may defend it, or the man seized may defend himself if he chooses. There is a different statute on the subject of interfering with the process of the courts, interfering with judicial processes, under which this respondent is not held to answer. Whenever this respondent is held to answer for resisting judicial processes, then these other questions may be raised. He is now only charged with rescuing property from the owner, or the officer holding for the owner.

The Constitution says that any person _charged_ with crime, and escaping, shall delivered up. But in the case of the Fugitive Slave, it carefully alters the phraseology. It does not say that any person _charged_ with being a Fugitive Slave shall be surrendered, but any person who _is_ a Fugitive Slave. In the one case, the _charge_ is the only material fact, and is proved by record. In the other case, which is a question of property, the fact of property is the foundation of the proceeding. So, in this act of 1850, the 6th Section does not provide that any person who _claims_ a Fugitive Slave, shall have the right to arrest him, but any person who _is the owner_ of a Fugitive Slave, may arrest him. So in the 7th Section, the penalty is not inflicted for rescuing a person who is _claimed_ as a Fugitive Slave, but for rescuing a person who _is_ a Fugitive Slave. These provisions are in analogy with the law of property, and of the arrest of persons and property, in all other cases. As bad as this statute is, it is not quite so bad as its friends in this case would make it.

The next consideration is, that it is not necessary that the claim should be made by virtue of legal process. The owner or his agent may arrest the fugitive _with or without process._ The offence is equally committed, and the penalty is the same, whether the rescue is made from the owner without process, or from the officer having process. This fact, with the fact that there is a general statute relating to the offence of obstructing judicial processes, shows that this statute assumes the facts of property and escape to be true, and applies only to cases in which they shall prove to be true.

If this is not so, what is the result? If a man claims another, without process, by putting his hand on his shoulder, though the man may be as free as you or I, if he resists, or his friends aid him in resisting, the offence is committed. A man claimed as a Fugitive Slave, has been rescued or aided in his escape. You cannot refuse to deliver up a colored boy or girl born in your house, of free parents, to any man who knocks at your door and claims the child, with or without a warrant, without incurring the penalties of this act. This monstrous construction can never be admitted. I beseech the Commissioner to reconsider his intimated opinion on this point, and to hold the Government to preliminary proof, in the outset, that the person rescued was a slave by the law of Virginia, was the slave of the man who claimed him, and was a fugitive from that state of Slavery.

What evidence has there been of any of these facts? There has been no evidence offered that the prisoner was a slave by the law of Virginia!--There has been no evidence offered that he was the slave of Mr. Debree! There has been no evidence offered that he was a fugitive from a state of slavery! Mr. Riley's return upon the warrant, stating that he had arrested "the within named Shadrach," was admitted as evidence. I solemnly protested against the reception of the return as evidence in a criminal proceeding between other parties; but it was received, and for a while held to be conclusive. But, in answer to my question, Mr. Riley replied that he did not know the man he arrested to be the man named in the warrant. And how could he know it? This nullified the return, and the government had no evidence. The District Attorney saw this, and rising in his seat, in a threatening tone, said to Mr. Riley, "I warn you, sir, not to give that testimony!" The testimony was true, and it was admitted by the court. Why was Mr. Riley warned? He was warned for private reasons. It was an official warning, by the agent of the Executive to one of its servants.

_Mr. Lunt_--I deny that it was a private warning. It was public, and for proper reasons.

_Mr. Dana_--It was for private, or secret reasons, not given, not apparent,--some political or governmental terror, known only to the parties. There is no escape from this. The bar saw it. The audience saw it. It is graven with a pen of iron, and laid up in the rock forever!