The Litchfield County post., 1828-01-24
CONGRESS-.

On Friday Jan. 4, MT. LlVlnSstOn, OI LOU isiana, in the house of representatives, moved for an appropriation to remunerate M. D'Au- terive for the lost time of a slave, who was impressed into the service of the United States at New Orleans, where he was injur- ed and also for hospital charges. The Com mittee of claims, had reported against this claim, and had said that "slaves were not put on the footing of property, and paid for. when lost to the owner in public service." An ami mated debate ensued, which turned upon the question whether this slave was to be paid for as property lost, from which sprung up the general question whether slaves are in all re- spects property or not. The principal speak CTS were MT. Whittlesey of Ohio, who is a member of the committee of claims, and MT. Livingston.
 On Monday of last week Jan. 7. the dis cussion of MT. Livingston's motion was re- sumed.
 MT. CLARKE, of New-York, was sorry that gentleman had raised the question wheth- CT slave is property. He regretted that southern gentlemen had raised this question, as it might form pretext for reviving the se rio-comic piece, called the Missouri question, and marching the ghost of that question in solemn grandeur through the House. shaking its gory locks at the South. and with his eyes fixed on that part of the escutcheon of our constitution which contains the word slavery. crying "damned spot" He regarded slaves as persons, not as property. They had rights of life and limb, were entitled to trial by jury. They have been regarded as moral agents, responsible for their acts. The gentleman from Louisiana had foreseen great evils from the rejection of this claim. But he believed that the gentleman was more indebted to his fancy than to facts The gentleman from Alabama said he hoped the question would be now settled. The gentleman from South Carolina had said this House could not now settle the question.
 That member did not mean to say that his constituents would not obey decision of Con- gress he did not intend that. like a certain southern doctor, Cooper] they would begin to calculate the advantages of the Union. He had merely intended to say that the question was settled by the constitution, and there he agreed with him. Both humanity and reli- zion sanctioned the construction that slaves are property in the strict sense of the terrlF 0Ses the slave holder treat his slave as he does his OK ! He trusted not and there fore the slave was not the same kind of pro perty. hut was property somewhat between the moral and material world. He was of O. pinion that the right of the Government to use slaves for public defence was yielded by the States when the constitution was formed. They were not to stop, in q moment of inn minent danger, to ask if man was white or black, but merely if he was able to wield d musket and bayOnet. He was brought ato the conclusion that by the constitution, slaves are in some cases to he considered persons, although the property of the master in them is not to be doubted.
 Mr. Randolph, of Va. then rose and said My motive for throwing myself on the at tention of the House, is earnestly to request --that no member of the House south of the Ohio, and east of the Mississippi, will debate this qnesti0n--will condescend, to debate the point which has arisen-I mean whether per sons can or cannot be property; or will allow that the General Government can, at any time under any circumstances, in any man. ner. touch that question.
 This is d question, the United States Gov ernment has nothing to do with. It never had. and it never can have: for the mOHsent itiays their unhallowed hands upon the apk o that question it ceases to be Government This question was settled two hundred years since. It has been settled from the day the first cargo of Africans was landed on these shores. What new distinction is this. ahsut