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.

It is not too much to say, that in every section and at every point it is repugnant to admitted principles of Constitutional Law.

Foremost among these objections it is proper to put the denial of trial by jury to the fugitive whose liberty is in question.

But here again, if it may, so overwhelming is the claim of justice, it MUST.

The text of the Constitution leaves the case beyond question.

Freedmen, slaves no longer, be of good cheer!

Such is the mandate of the American people in the reëlection of Abraham Lincoln.

Thank God, the pettifoggers of compromise are answered by the people, who demand peace on the everlasting foundations of Union and Liberty.

It is because of the contempt with which, under the teachings of Slavery, to the shame of our country, men have thus far regarded the rights of colored persons, that courts have been willing for a moment to recognize the constitutional…

Had the victims been white, it is easy to see that the rule would have been different.

But it is obvious, that, under the Constitution, the rule must be the same for all, whether black or white.

On the one side is a question of property; on the other side is the vital question of Human Freedom in its most transcendent form,--not merely Freedom for a day or a year, but for life, and the freedom of generations that shall succeed so…

Whether viewed as a question of property or a question of Human Freedom, the requirement of the Constitution is equally explicit, and it becomes more explicit as we examine its history.

Thus, in those days, a partisan of Slavery, while asserting its divine origin, and vindicating the rendition of fugitive slaves, recognized the claim of the master as “a suit at Common Law,” to be tried by a jury; and this he insisted was…

The political barbers, who undertake to prescribe, when they can only shave, are warned that their quackery is at an end.

But if this Senator could claim trial by jury for the protection of his pretended property, with much greater reason might the fugitive claim trial by jury for the protection of his liberty.

Surely, now, when Liberty is regaining her lost foothold, this protection will not be denied.

To call it “preliminary,” and on this ground set up apology for denial of trial by jury, is only another illustration of devices employed by Slavery to baffle the demands of Freedom.

If you pass a law which shall require a trial by jury, not one man in twenty whose slave escapes will incur the risks or expense of going after the fugitive.

Thus, in a question of Human Freedom, the delay incident to trial by jury was unblushingly asserted as a sufficient reason for denial of the right.

On a pretension so repulsive, it is enough to say that its feebleness is exceeded only by its audacity.

The Committee, therefore, put aside the attempts at reply, and confidently rest in the conclusion that the denial of trial by jury to a person claimed as slave is an unquestionable violation of the Constitution.

But a commissioner is not a judicial tribunal, nor is he in any sense a judge; so that he is not entitled, under the Constitution, to exercise this extraordinary jurisdiction.

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.