Page images
PDF
EPUB

159

MESSRS. CURTIS SEEKING TO ENSLAVE A GIRL IN 1836. Bible in English; the Catholic Inquisition in Spain was "not immoral;" the butchery of Martyrs was all right soon as lawful! There is no Higher Law!

66

[ocr errors]

It was "not immoral" for the servants of King Pharaoh to drown all the new-born Hebrew boys; nor for Herod's butchers to murder the Innocents at Bethlehem. Nay, all the atrocities of the Saint Bartholomew Massacres, Gentlemen, they were "not immoral," for "the Standard of Morality" is "that which the law prescribes." So any legislature that can frame an act, any tyrant who can issue a decree, any court which can deliver an opinion," can at once nullify the legislation of the Universe and "dissolve the union" of Man and God: Religion has nothing to do with politics; there it makes men mad." Is that the doctrine of Young Massachusetts? Hearken then to the Old. In 1765 her House of Representatives unanimously resolved that "there are certain essential Rights . . . which are founded on` the Law of God and Nature, and are the Common Rights of Mankind, and that the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to these essential Rights in common with all men, and that no law of Society . . . can divest them of these Rights." No "Standard of Morality" but Law! A thousand years before Jesus of Nazareth taught his Beatitudes of Humanity, the old Hebrews knew better. Hearken to a Psalm nearly three thousand years old.

[ocr errors]

Among the assemblies of the great,
A Greater Ruler takes his seat;
The God of Heaven, as Judge, surveys,
Those Gods on earth, and all their ways.
Why will ye, then, frame wicked laws?
Or why support the unrighteous cause?
When will ye once defend the poor,
That sinners vex the Saints no more?
Arise, oh Lord, and let thy Son
Possess his universal Throne,

And rule the nations with his rod;

He is our Judge, and he our God.

By the law of this Commonwealth," added Mr. Curtis, " Slavery is not immoral. By the Supreme law of this Commonwealth Slavery is not only recognized as a valid institution, but to a certain extent is incorporated into our own law. Before you [the court] rise from your seats, you may be called upon by the master of a fugitive slave, to grant a certificate which will put the whole force of the Commonwealth at his disposal, to remove his slave from our Territory.” Gentlemen of the Jury, that was conquering his prejudices "with alacrity;" it was obeying the fugitive slave bill fourteen years before it was heard of.

He adds still further, by quotation, "I have no doubt but the citizen of a Slave State has a right to pass, upon business or pleasure, through any of the States attended by his slaves-and his right to reclaim his slave would be unquestioned. An escape from the attendance upon the person of his master, while on a journey through a free State, should be considered as an escape from the State where the master had a right of citizenship."

Mr. Charles P. Curtis thus sustained his kinsman :

"Is that to be considered immoral which the Court is bound to assist in doing? It is not for us to denounce as legally immoral a practice which is permitted and sanctioned by the supreme law of the land!". "It is said the practice of Slavery is corrupting in its influence on public morals. But the practice of bringing slaves here was much more common thirty years ago than now. If this practice be so corrupting, why is it tolerated in other States?" "The law of New York allows even foreigners to go there with their slaves; and have the morals of that State suffered in consequence? In Pennsylvania the law is similar, but where is the evidence of its pernicious influence?" "As to the right to using them, [the slaves voluntarily brought here by their masters,] notwithstanding the supposed horror at such an admission, the legislatures of New York and Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and New Jersey, have actually enacted statutes allowing precisely that privilege."1

But the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held otherwise. Med was declared free. Chief Justice Shaw covered himself with honor by his decision. And soon after, (Aug. 29,) the Daily Advertiser, the "organ" of the opinions of this family, said:

...

"In some of the States there is legislative provision for cases of this sort, [allowing masters to bring and hold slaves therein,] and it would seem that some such provision is necessary in this State, unless we would prohibit citizens of the Slave States from travelling in this State with their families, and unless we would permit such of them as wish to emancipate their slaves, to throw them, at their pleasure, upon the people of this State."

--

Gentlemen, Mr. Curtis in 1836 contended for all which Mr. Toombs boasts he shall get the right of the slaveholder to sit down at the foot of Bunker Hill monument with his slaves! Nay, Mr. Curtis granted more: it may be the duty of Massachusetts "to interfere actively," and establish slavery in Louisiana, or in Kansas. It may be said, this was only a lawyer pleading for his client. It was a lawyer asking the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to establish slavery in this Commonwealth. Is it innocent in a lawyer to ask the court to do a wicked thing, to urge the court to do it? Then is it equally innocent to ask the Treasurer of a Railroad to forge stock, or an editor to publish lies, or a counterfeiter to make and utter base coin, or an assassin to murder men. Surely it is as innocent to urge men to kidnap blacks in Africa as in Boston.

1 Med. Case, 1836.

MESSRS. CURTIS SEEKING TO ENSLAVE A GIRL IN 1836. 161

Gentlemen, That declaration-that the Statute supersedes natural Justice, and that the only "Standard of Morality" by which the courts are to be guided is "that which the law prescribes" - deserves your careful consideration. "He that squares his conscience by the law is a scoundrel" - say the proverbs of many nations. What do you think of a man who knows no lawgiver but the General Court of Massachusetts, or the American Congress: no Justice but the Statutes? If Mr. Curtis's doctrine is correct, then Franklin, Hancock, Adams, Washington, were only Rebels and Traitors! They refused that "Standard of Morality." Nay, our Puritan Fathers were all "criminals;" the twelve Apostles committed not only "misdemeanors" but sins; and Jesus of Nazareth was only a malefactor, a wanton disturber of the public peace of the world!

[ocr errors]

The slave child Med, poor, fatherless, and unprotected, comes before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, claiming her natural and unalienable Right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, if not granted she is a slave for ever. In behalf of her wealthy "owner" Mr. Curtis resists the girl's claim; tells the court she "is now a slave;" there is "no practical difficulty" in allowing the master to keep her in that condition, no "theoretical difficulty;" "slavery is not immoral;" it may be the duty of Massachusetts not only to recognize slavery at home, but also "even to interfere actively" to support slavery abroad; the law is the only " Standard of Morality" for the courts; that establishes slavery in Massachusetts! Gentlemen, what do mankind say to such sophistry? Hearken to this Hebrew Bible: "Wo unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed, to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the Right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless." Let the stern Psalm of the Puritans still further answer from the manly bosom of the Bible.

"Judges who rule the world by laws,

Will ye despise the righteous cause,

When the injured poor before you stands?

Dare ye condemn the righteous poor

And let rich sinners 'scape secure,

While Gold and Greatness bribe your hands?

"Have ye forgot, or never knew,

That God will judge the judges too?

High in the Heavens his Justice reigns;

Yet you invade the rights of God,
And send your bold decrees abroad,

To bind the Conscience in your chains.

"Break out their teeth, eternal God,
Those teeth of lions dy'd in blood;

And crush the serpents in the dust;
As empty chaff, when whirlwinds rise,
Before the sweeping tempest flies,

So let their hopes and names be lost.

"Thus shall the Justice of the Lord
Freedom and peace to men afford;

And all that hear shall join and say,
́Sure there's a God that rules on high,
A God that hears his children cry,

And all their sufferings will repay."

2. After Mr. Webster had made his speech of March 7, 1850, pledging himself and his State to the support of the fugitive slave bill, then before Congress, "to the fullest extent," Thomas B. Curtis, with the help of others, got up a letter to Mr. Webster, dated March 25, 1850, signed, it is said, by 987 persons, who say: "We desire to express to you our deep obligations for what this speech has done and is doing." "You have pointed out to a whole people the path of duty, have convinced the understanding and touched the conscience of the nation." "We desire, therefore, to express to you our entire concurrence in the sentiments of your speech."

3. A little later, Mr. Webster returned to Boston, and was "rapturously received" at the Revere House, April 29, 1850, by a "great multitude," when Benjamin R. Curtis made a public address, and expressed his "abounding gratitude for the ability and fidelity" which Mr. Webster had "brought to the defence of the Constitution and of the Union," and commended him as "eminently vigilant, wise, and faithful to his country, without a shadow of turning."

4. Presently, after the passage of the fugitive slave bill, at a dinner party, at the house of a distinguished counsellor of Boston, Charles P. Curtis declared that he hoped the first fugitive slave who should come to Boston would be seized and sent back!

5. Charles P. Curtis and his step-brother Edward G. Loring, and George T. Curtis, defended the fugitive slave bill by writing articles in the Boston Daily Advertiser.

6. In November, 1850, the slave-hunters, thus invited and encouraged, came to Boston, seeking to kidnap William and Ellen Craft: but they in vain applied to Commissioner Benj. F. Hallett, and to Judges Woodbury and Sprague, for a warrant to arrest their prey. Finally, they betook themselves to Commissioner George T. Curtis, who at once agreed to grant a warrant; but, according to his own statement, in a letter to Mr. Webster, Nov. 23, 1850, as he anticipated resistance, and considered it very important that the Marshal should have more support than it was in his power as a Commissioner to afford, he procured a meeting of the Commissioners, four in num

MESSRS. CURTIS KIDNAPPING THE CRAFTS.

163

ber, and with their aid succeeded in persuading the Circuit Court, then in session, to issue the warrant.

Gentlemen, as that letter of Mr. George T. Curtis contains some matters which are of great importance, you will thank me for refreshing your memory with such pieces of history.

...

"An application [for a warrant to arrest Mr. Craft] had already been made to the judges [Messrs. Woodbury and Sprague] privately . . . they could not grant a warrant on account of the pendency of an important Patent Cause then on trial before a jury." "To this I replied, that . . . the ordinary business of the Court ought to give way for a sufficient length of time, to enable the judges to receive this application and to hear the case." "On a private intimation to the presiding judge of our desire to confer with him [the desire of the kidnapping commissioners, Mr. B. F. Hallett, Mr. Edward G. Loring, Mr. C. L. Woodbury, and Mr. G. T. Curtis] the jury were dismissed at an earlier hour than usual, . . . and every person present except the Marshal's deputies left the room, and the doors were closed.” "The learned Judge said . . . that he would attend at half past eight the next morning, to grant the warrant." "A process was placed in the hands of the Marshal . . . in the execution of which he might be called upon to break open dwelling-houses, and perhaps take life, by quelling resistance, actual or threatened." "I devoted at once a good deal of time to the necessary investigations of the subject." "There is a great deal of legislation needed to make the general government independent of State control," says this "Expounder of the Constitution," " and independent of the power of mobs, whenever and wherever its measures chance to be unpopular." "The office of United States Marshal is by no means organized and fortified by legislation as it should be to encounter popular disturbance."

7. The warrant having been issued for the seizure of Mr. Craft, Marshal Devens applied to Benjamin R. Curtis for legal advice as to the degree of force he might use in serving it, and whether it ought to be regarded as a civil or a criminal process. George T. Curtis was employed by his brother to search for authorities on these points. They two, together, as appears from the letter of George T. Curtis to Mr. Webster, induced Marshal Devens to ask a further question, which gave Benjamin R. Curtis an opportunity to come out with an elaborate opinion in favor of the constitutionality of the fugitive slave bill, dated November 9, 1850. This was published in the newspapers. In order to maintain the constitutionality of this act, Benjamin R. Curtis was driven to assume, as all its defenders must, that the Commissioner, in returning the fugitive, performs none of the duties of a Judge; that the hearing before him is not "a case arising under the laws of the United States;" that he acts not as a judicial, but merely as an executive and "ministerial" officer- not deciding him to be a slave, but merely giving him up, to enable that point to be tried elsewhere.1 But, spite of this opinion, public justice and the

1 On this see Hildreth's Despotism, 262, 280. Commissioner Loring considers that the fugitive slave bill commissioners have "judicial duties." Remonstrance to General Court, 2.

« PreviousContinue »