By this stipulation, the Northern States are made the hunting ground of slave-catchers, who may pursue their victims with bloodhounds, and capture them with impunity wherever they can lay their robber hands upon them.  At least twelve or fifteen thousand runaway slaves are now in Canada, exiled from their native land, because they could not find, throughout its vast extent, a single road on which they could dwell in safety, in consequence of this provision of the Constitution?  How is it possible, then, for the advocates of liberty to support a government which gives over to destruction one-sixth part of the whole population?

It is denied by some at the present day, that the clause which has been cited, was intended to apply to runaway slaves.  This indicates either ignorance, or folly or something worse.  JAMES MADISON, as one of the framers of the Constitution, is of some authority on this point.  Alluding to that instrument, in the Virginia convention, he said:—­

“Another clause secures us that property which we now possess.  At present, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws; for the laws of the States are uncharitable (!) to one another in this respect; but in this constitution, ’No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.’  THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE THE OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. This is a better security than any that now exists.  No power is given to the general government to interfere with respect to the property in slaves now held by the States.”

In the same convention, alluding to the same clause, GOV.  RANDOLPH said:—­

“Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor.  And, when authority is given to owners of slaves to vindicate their property, can it be supposed they can be deprived of it?  If a citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought that, after taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?”

It is objected, that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as the clause refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves.  But this is criticism against fact.  Slaves are recognized not merely as property, but also as persons—­as having a mixed character—­as combining the human with the brutal.  This is paradoxical, we admit; but slavery is a paradox—­the American Constitution is a paradox—­the American Union is a paradox—­the American Government is a paradox; and if any one of these is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are.  That it is the duty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding authority of them all, and to secede from them all,