Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-02-05
Congress Of the v. States
tREPoRrgD FOR The n. iSrELLIogNGER.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 80.
I'm coNTINUATIoN.l

IN CONTIN
The House having resumed the consid-
Grafton of the bill providing. for the reco-
very of fugitive slaves, and the question
having been announced to be OH the pas
sage ofthe bill.
Mr.. Adams, of Mass. opposed the bill
at much length; on the ground princi-
pally that, ia guaranteeing the possession
of slave property 10 those states holding
il, the Constitution did not authorize or
require the general government to 60 as
far as this bill proposed, to render the
constitutional provision effectual; that
the bill contained provisions dangerous to
the liberty aud safety of the free people
of color in other sections In the union;
and that, in securing the rights of one
portioni of the community, he could not
consent to jeopardise those of another,
SC.
Mr.. Anderson, Of KY. spoke some time
very earnestly in support of the bill, and
in reply TO the objections urged by the
gentlemen who had at different times OPP
posed it.
Mr.. Lipermore, of n. ii. submitted the
reasons for his intention TO vote against
the bill. lie was willing 10 go TO the ne
cessary extent IN securing 10 the owners
this species ct property, permitted as IT
was by the constitution but the bill con-
tanned no sufficient guard TO the safety of
those colored people who resided in the
states where slavery was known only by
name. The bill provided that alledged
fugitives were not TO be identified and
proven until they reached the state in
which the person seizing them resided
and this would expose the free of Othe
parts to the hazard of being dragged from
one extreme OF the country to the other
though this fear was not strengthened by
any want of respect for the wisdom and
justice of the southern judiciaries, TO
which he paid the highest compliment !:
but the feelings entertained on the sub
ject in the south, he feared, would make
less secure the liberty ofany colored man
carried there, and Charged with being a
fugitive.
Mr.. Mason, of Mass. delivered at length
his motives for approving the bill. :.
The constitution, formed in The spirit of
compromise, had guaranteed this kind of
property TO the southern states, and as it
appeared, from the inSufficiency of the
existing laws, that the proposed bill was
necessary to secure this right, he was
willing 10 adopt the measure, as he was
always 10 approve any measure to effect
what the constitution sanctioned. The
possible abuse of any thing was no argu-
ment against it, if otherwise expedient,
and on this ground he was not prepared
10 reject the feature of the bin so much
opposed. The judicial tribunals of the
south he had no doubt, would decide on
the cases as correctly as those Of the
north, and on this subject perhaps more
80, as, he believed, so strong was the
feeling OH this subject in the latter sec
ton of the country, and SO great a lean
ing was there against slavery, that the .iu-
81 ID, Ill
nine cases in hundred, decide in favor
Of the fugitive. His feelings on this bill
were also somewhat interested :; as he
wished not, by denying just facilities for
the recovery of fugitive slaves, to have
the town where lie lived (Boston) infest-
ed, as il would be, without an effectual
restraint, with great portion of the run
Always from tile South, &c. &c.
Mr.. Holmes, of Mass. followed his COL
league in submitting his reasons for APP
proving the bill, and to reconcile the APP
parent contradiction in gentleman from
his part of the country appearing as the
supporter of this bill. His course on this
as OH other measures, was based on his
duty as representative for the lOhoLe uni
OH, instead of local interests. This mea-
sure, IT appeared, was necessary TO secure
the constitutional rights of large portion
strongly objected to by some gentlemen,
ne did not think it competent in Massa-
chusetls 10 try a question between d
southern master and his slave it was a
alnd Of question, with which his constitu-
e:lts, TO their honor, were not familiar,
and he wished them TO remain so. He
did not believe the freedom of single
man in the north would be endangered
by this provision ofthe bill the habess
corpus would prevent it and he went in
To- various arguments to prove that the
bill was expedient, and free from the e.
wis apprehended by other gentlemen.
Mr. Rhea made some observations in
support of The bin, and in reply TO The ar
gumeDts against it. So long as this pro-
psrty was authorized, there could be 10
doubt of the right Of the holder TO pur-
sue it, and carry it back without hlndrance
~ the place from whence il escapes
Ee thanked Heaven this nation was not
shargeable with the odium of introducing
this species OF property; it was au evil
enlailed on it (; and this bill was in con-
formity with the principles of the compact
which guaranteed this property to lis
holders. There was little danger of per-
sons going from the south TO claim free
men as their property; such a fear was
without foundation. He always felt pain
in hearing distinctions made between the
slave holding states and others nearly
all the old original thirteen states had
held slaves, and IL circumstances had en-
abled some of them to get rid of the evil.
the only feeling they ought to entertain
towards the others, is, compassion that
they are not so fortunate.
MIR. HorrS, ofN. Y. entered into num-