any free negro or mulatto having gained a legal settlement in this State, shall forfeit and pay for every such offence the sum of $1000 to the party injured, to be recovered in the name of the people of the State of Illinois, by action of debt in any court having cognizance of the same." By a proviso it was added, that this should not apply to the recapture of fugitive slaves.

The fine, it will be observed, was for the party injured, who might have been successfully carried to so remote a section in the south and there sold into bondage, as to preclude the possibility of his return. No share of it was to go to a prosecutor. It in effect provided a premium for the successful kidnapper who would steal the remedy with the person. The remedy was civil; no provision occurs in the law for any other punishment if the culprit was worthless in visible worldly effects upon which to levy an execution, and this doubtless was the condition of the kidnapping scoundrels in 99 cases out of every 100. The law reads: who "shall forcibly take and carry out of this State" &c; but in the majority of cases the poor ignorant blacks, by fraud and deceit, were inveigled into a trip south on a flat boat, or other errand, and at some pre-arranged point on the river they would be turned over to confederates, forcibly and rapidly taken to the interior and there sold into slavery, the original parties often leaving the impression upon their black dupes that they had no hand in the outrage. Against such enticements the law cited made no provi sion, and they were perpetrated with impunity. Another mode was to seize a black and forcibly convey him to a rendezvous either on the Ohio or Mississippi, but not out of the State, where a confederate would appear and carry him beyond. Nor were the blacks allowed their oaths against whites, and hence it was generally impossible to convict.

The crime of seizing free blacks, running them south and selling them into slavery from this State, for a long time was quite common. The poor ignorant colored creatures, against whom was not only the law but apparently every man's hand, were hampered in the south by all the contrivances of ingenious slave codes to prevent their escape, while the weary years of unrequited toil rolled slowly around, ever embittered by heart longings to return to home and kindred. The same may be said of the affectionate ones left at home. No crime can be greater than this. Portions of southern Illinois for many years afforded a safe retreat to these kidnapping outlaws. We cannot cite the numerous cases of kid. napping. An early conviction for this crime was that of Jeptha Lambkins, at the term of the Madison county circuit court, November, 1822. We have not the particulars. On the night of May 25, 1823, a free colored man named Jackson Butler, his wife and 6 children, residing in Illinois a few miles from Vincennes, were kidnapped by a band of villians from Lawrence county in this State. Butler had been purchased by Gov. Harrison in Kentucky, brought to Indiana, indentured, and had served out his term faithfully. His wife was born free, which rendered the children also free. They were taken down the Wabash to the Ohio, thence south. Harrison learning of the outrage, offered a reward of $300 for the apprehension of the kidnappers. The name of Harrison gave it wide circulation, and in September following, news came

that the Butler family had been rescued at New Orleans, just as they were about to be shipped to Cuba.*

In his first message to the general assembly, December, 5, 1822, Gov. Coles called special attention to the subject of kidnapping; that crime, he was sorry to say, was too often committed in the State with impunity; urged that the duty of society as well as every benevolent feeling demanded better protection for the free blacks, while they remained in the State; that the peculiar situation of the State, bordering on three rivers communicating with the country where there was always a demand for slaves, afforded a great temptation and facility to the lawless and inhuman to engage in this crime, and that more efficient laws were required to prevent the kidnapping of free blacks.

This part of the message, with the subject of slavery, was referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. Will, Emmit and Moore, who reported Dec. 12, 1822, as follows: "Your committee have carefully examined the laws upon the subject, and with deep regret announce their incapability of devising a more effectual plan than the one already prescribed by law for the suppression of such infamous crimes. It is believed that the benevolent views of the executive and the benign purposes of the statutes can only be realized by the redoubled diligence of our grand juries and our magistrates, aided by the well directed support of all just and good men."

The legislature was politically opposed to the governor, and the language of the committee, "benign statute," was the baldest of irony. These gentlemen however were quite capable of devising a scheme how to introduce slavery into the State, which they reported at the same time, and to which we will now direct our inquiry.

[In 1851 an attempted murder, growing out of the business of kidnapping, was curiously developed. It shows also the modus operandi and the desperate characters connec ted with this crime. A Mrs. Prather, deceased, of Weakley county, Tennessee, had some years before emancipated her slaves, and they removed to Gallatin county, Illinois. Here they were followed by parties from their former home, who conspired to arrest them as fugitive slaves. The U. S. district court, Judge Pope presiding, decided upon full proof that they had not a shadow of claim to them. With the conspirators was connected a shrewd bad man by the name of Newton E. Wright, residing in Kentucky, back of Wolf Island, who had long been engaged in kidnapping. While here attempting to reclaim the Prather negroes as slaves, he formed the acquaintance of a notorious kidnapper of Hamilton county, named Joe O'Neal, with whom was associated a disreputable character by the name of Abe Thomas. Subsequently O'Neal stole three likely children from an old negro named Scott, in Hamilton county, Illinois, and ran them off and sold them partly on credit to Wright, who resold them at New Madrid to one Phillips. When O'Neal's note matured he sent Thomas to collect it, telling him further that Wright had business of a particular nature for him, for which he would be well paid. Thomas proceeded by steamer to Wright's. There he undertook for $150 to kill a Dr Swayne, at Hicco, Tennessee, who had sued Wright on a note of $8000. If the doctor could be killed, Wright, by means of nicely forged receipts, could successfully defend the suit.

In May, 1850, a man calling himself Stewart, rode up to the house of Dr. Swayne, desiring him to visit his father, a little way off, alleged to have been taken suddenly ill on his return from Texas. The doctor invited the stranger to dinner, just ready; that attended to, the two rode away to see the sick man After proceeding some distance, Stewart, falling a little behind, drew a pistol and shot the doctor, the ball lodging in his arm, fracturing it badly. The cry of murder was raised, but Stewart made his escape. Pursuit was made, and every effort to ferret out the assassin; suspected parties were followed even to Texas; much money was expended, but without avail. Dr. Swayne recovered.

But now unexpectedly a clue was gained. Two citizens of White county, Illinois. John Eubanks and son, Shannon, took a lot of horses to Tennessee for sale, and while in the neighborhood of Dr. Swayne's, heard him relate the particulars of the attempt to assassinate him, giving also a minute description of his assailant, whose nose was flat at the base, projecting forward like a hawk's bill. Shannon knew the description fitted Abe Thomas, and no other living man, who was then stopping at Joe O.Neal's, in Hamilton courty, Illinois. Further description as too size, complexion, &c., tallied exactly. A short time after, Thomas was seized by same Tennesseeans, and carried to that State for trial. (Shawneetown Mercury 1851.]

*Ill. Intelligencer, 1823.

The Convention question of 1824-The Effort to make Illinois a Slave State.-It has doubtless been noted that the voice of the people of the territory, as it found expression from time to time, was strongly in favor of slavery. By canvassing the names of leading convention advocates in 1823-4, and from other circumstances, it may be asserted with entire safety that the constitutional convention of 1818, left unrestrained by the ordinance of 1787, or the enabling act to form a constitution, would have established slavery. As it was, that convention in a manner evaded the full requirement of the acts of congress by declaring (article VI. sec. I.). "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter be introduced into this State ;" and by the 3d section of the same article they gave to indentured slavery the only validity it ever had. The feeling in favor of slavery was still strong after the admission of the State. The financial embarrassments of the people, to which we have adverted in the preceding chapter, coupled with the golden pictures of prosperity which that institution would bring to the country, as they were wont to regard it, did not abate their longings. The subject was further kept astir by the frenzied agitation of the slavery question as connected with the admission of Missouri, which convulsed the entire nation and threatened a dissolution of the Union.

It had also the effect to extensively advertise that new State, and stimulate emigration thither, as the crowds of immigrants from the southern States to Missouri, consisting in great part of the wealthiest and best educated classes, passed through southern Illinois, where immigration had been for some time stagnant, and the want of which was seriously felt. "Many of our people who had land and farms to sell, looked upon the good fortune of Missouri with envy; whilst the lordly immigrant, as he passed along with his money and droves of negroes, took a malicious pleasure in increasing it, by pretending to regret the short-sighted policy of Illinois, which excluded him from settling with his slaves among us, and from purchasing the lands of our people."*

Into the election of August, 1822, as we have noted, the question of slavery entered to a large extent, and while it was not generally sharply defined, it was well known that Coles was a zealous opponent of the institution of human chattels; so also was Gen. Moore; and for these reasons the partisans of freedom rallied with little division for Coles. His aggregate vote was 2810, that of Moore 522, total 3332. The vote of Phillips was 2760 and that of Brown 2543, total 5303-being a majority, so far as this expression was a criterion, of about 2000 in favor of the introduction of slavery. But personal considerations at that day entered more largely into election contests than principles.

Edward Coles, the governor elect of Illinois, was born in Virginia, Dec. 15, 1786, and was among the youngest of ten children. His father was a planter, owning many slaves. During college life the question of property in man first presented itself to Edward's mind, and he returned home impressed with its moral wrongfulness and political impolicy, and the resolution that when he should become the owner of his portion of his father's slaves he would emancipate them. Apprehending that these sentiments

'Ford's History.

would meet with no countenance at home he kept them sacred to himself. Upon the death of his father in 1808, he became entitled to 25 negroes and 1,000 acres of land. His father had taken no share in public life, but his home had been the resort of nearly all the great statesmen of the day. Edward became the private secretary of President Madison. In person Coles was tall and graceful, with face of the Grecian style. To a benevolent disposition he added a wide fund of information, social tact and conversational powers. By the judicious exercise of these he is said to have brought into new bonds of friendship Mr. Madison and Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson, who had respectively been somewhat estranged. In 1816 he was sent in the sloop of war "Promethious" on a special mission to Russia, as the bearer of important dispatches to the American embassador at St. Petersburg. Before his return he made the tour of Europe. After his arrival home he shortly determined to go west. He spent the summer of 1818 in Illinois, and witnessed the labors of the convention at Kaskaskia to enact the first constitution. In the following spring, 1819, he removed with his slaves to Illinois. On the trip hither, made mostly on flat boats down the Ohio, the negroes, being ignorant of their destination, were one clear moonlight evening in June, while calmly floating down the placid stream, called together, and by their master addressed in a plain, short speech in which he pronounced them all free. Their grati tude was so profound that they tendered him one year's service at their new home. But being much touched at this manifestation of their attachment, he refused their offer. He gave, besides, to each head of a family 160 acres of land in Illinois, in the neighborhood of Edwardsville, aided them with money, and for many years exercised paternal care over them.*

In 1833, at the age of 47, he removed to Philadelphia, and was married to Miss Sallie Logan Roberts, by whom he had one daughter and two sons. He died July 7, 1868, in the 82d year of his age. On coming to Illinois, Coles received the appointment of register of the land office at Edwardsville, from Mr. Crawford, secretary of the treasury, who was an aspirant to the presidency. Coles, it was supposed, was sent out to counteract the influence of Gov. Edwards, who favored Cahoun.t

The partisans of slavery, although beaten for governor in 1822, by a schism in their own ranks, had carried both houses of the general assembly, and the lieutenant-governor, and throughout the first half of his term, the governor experienced a want of accord

*The law of 1819 respecting free negroes required the emancipator to give bond that they should not become a county charge. Having provided them amply with lands, Coles neglected to do this, whereby he incurred a liability to a fine of $200 for each negro, which might be sued for by the county in which they were settled. During the heat of the convention struggle the county commissioners of Madison were instigated to bring suit against the Governor for this penalty, resulting, in September, 1824, in a verdict of $2,000 for setting at liberty negroes without giving bond Pending a motion for a new trial, in January 1825, the legislature released all penalties incurred under the act, including those of Coles. At the next term of court he plead this release in bar of judgment against him. But Judge McRoberts decided that the legislature had no power to take from a municipal corporation its vested right in a fine, any more than from an individual, and rendered judgment on the verdict. This decision, believed to have been influenced by the feelings growing out of the slavery contest the year before, caused no little popular excitement. The case was taken to the supreme court and reversed, the power of the legislature being held to be ample in the premises The opinion of the court, by Wilson, chief justice, says: "It is said the king cannot remit an informer's interest in a popular action after suit brought; this is no doubt true, but it is equally true that the Parliament can. It is not pretended that the executive could remit the penalty in this case, but that the legislature may." +Ford's History of Illinois.

with that body. Governor Coles directed attention to the subject of slavery, and in clear and forcible language urged the emancipation of the French slaves, recommended a revision of the black laws in accordance with the dictates of humanity, and the enactment of more adequate laws to repress the frequent crime of kidnapping, as we have noticed. This was enough to immediately fan into flame the smouldering embers of the slavery question. The purpose was now to make a strong effort to introduce slavery into Illinois, which could only be done by amending the constitution, which required a two-thirds vote in each house to pass the proposition submitting the question to a vote of the people. So much of the message as related to the abrogation of slavery, was referred to a select committee, consisting of Messrs. Beaird, Boon, Ladd, Kinney and White, who in a few days reported as follows: After giving a historical resume of the establishment of slavery in Illinois, demonstrating its legal existence and claiming that the provision in the deed of cession from Virginia, viz: that the inhabitants of the territory who professed themselves to have been citizens of Virginia previous to the cession, should "have their possessions and titles confirmed to them, and be protected in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties," could not be overridden and set aside by the subsequent act of congress, which provided that "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory;" that the language in the deed of cession was too plain and forcible to be misunderstood or evaded; that the constitution, in obedience to the behests of congress, for the purpose of having the State admitted, was careful to avoid any interfer ence with this species of property, and left it in the same state of security that the ordinance had placed it; that thus the constitution of Illinois was ratified, no doubt upon the ground that no condition of the ordinance had been violated, and that the constitution left the right to property acquired under the compact with Virginia, entire.

They concluded their report by saying: "Your committee have now arrived at the period when Illinois was admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever; and whatever causes of regret were experienced by the restrictions imposed upon the first convention, your committee are clearly of the opinion that the people of Illinois have now the same right to alter their constitution as the people of the State of Virginia, or any other of the original States, and may make any disposition of negro slaves they choose, without any breach of faith or violation of compact, ordinances or acts of congress; and if the reasoning employed be correct, there is no other course left by which to accomplish the object of this portion of the governor's message, than to call a convention to alter the constitution."

And they recommended the adoption of the following resolution: "Resolved, That the general assembly of the State of Illinois (two-thirds thereof concurring therein), do recommend to the electors, at the next election for members to the general assembly, to vote for or against a convention, agreeably to the 7th article of the constitution."

'See Ill. Intelligencer, Dec. 14, 1822.