It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who
made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the
intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear
their support to the whole Constitution - to this provision as much as
to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come
within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are
unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could
they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of
which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be
enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference
is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can
be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it
is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall
go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be
kept?

Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of
liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced,
so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might
it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement
of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States"?

I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no
purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical
rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of
Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much