Literary cadet and Rhode-Island statesman. [volume] (Providence, R.I.) 1827-1829, 1828-01-16
FROM THE JOURNAL.
SLAVERY.

A passionate discussion took place in the House
Of Representatives on the 4th, on the Bill for the
relief of llarisny ID .Auterire. On the discussion
of the merits of the Bill the jealousy ofthc members
from the slave holding States induced them to travel
out Of the record to raise a question, as to the interest
which a master had in his~slave, or in other words
whether the slave could he considered as property.
The facts Of the case on which tho Bill was founded
appear to be these. An officer ofthe United States army
impressed into the service ofthc country a slave belong
ing to NJ. D'A ntcrive the slave while in the service
was injured and the owner claimed compensation for
the injury. More than once during the discussion Of the
Rii. was the dissolution of the Union threatened by
members from a State whose white population is not
more than barely sufficient to control tho black. We
publish the remarks of Mr.. Clarke against. and Mr..
Randolph in favor of the appropriation.
Mr.. CLARKE, of Ncw-York, as one of the com
mittee, stated what reasons had induced him to vote
az he dill. lie was sorry that gentlemen had raised
the question whether a slave is property. He re-
| creted that southern gentlemen had raised this qucs-
ton, Us it might form n preteXt Tor rcviying the serio-
comic piece, called the Missouri question, aud march
ing the ghost OF that question in solemn grandeu.
through the House, shaking its CORY locks at the
South and with lis eye fixed on that part of the e-
cutcleon of our constitution which contains the word
slavery, CRYING ''out damned spot" lie had hoped
that this question was definct and inurncd, aud that
.requiescat in pacc' was inscribed over it,. He
deprecated the idea Of bringing up u question which
might be made a party prctext. He regarded slaves
as persons, not as property. They had rights of lie
aud limb. were entitled TO trial by jury. They have
been regarded as moral agents. responsible for their
acts.-Ihe State of Missouri has enlarged his rights,
an1 assigns no higher punishment to slaves for crimes,
than is assigned to white persons. The gentleman
! f-orn I nuis' ,uo had fnres aan ore,t avils fro N Tho ro,o,
ton of this claim. But he believed that gentleman
was more indebted to his fancy than to facts. The
gentleman from Alabama said he hoped the question
would be now settled. The question he thought was
settled forty years ago by tho constitution. The
gentleman from Souih-Carolina had said this House
could not settle the question.
The gentleman did not mean TO say that his con-
s,ituents would no; obey a decision ofCongress he
did not intend that, like a certain Southern doctor,
they would begin TO calculate the advantages of the
Union. He had merely intended TO say that the
question was settled by the constitutions, ard there he
agreed with him. He quoted Mr.. Madison's opin-
ions from the / ederaist, on this subject. Both hui
mlnity and religion sanction tho construction that
slaves are not property in the strict sense Of the term.
Does the stakeholder treat his slave as he does his OK,
lie trusted not aud therefore the slave was not the
same kind OF property but was a property somewhat be-
tween the moral and the material world. lie was of
opinion that the right ofthe Government to use slaves
for public defence was yielded by the States when the
@,Nh,' N'b ''sS NV siShh u DliC9
ment, under this concession, he was Of opinion, re-
sided in the Government. They were not to stop,
in a moment of imminent danger, to ask if a man was
white or black, but merely ifhe was able to wicld a
muskct and bayonet. The gentleman from Ohio had
stated that no precedent for an allowance was to be
found. The precodeats gathered from the allowing
compensation for property destroyed did not embrace
the property in slaves. On what principle did the
Government urge its claim on Great Britain! lit
was on tie ground of property alone, it was unjust not
TO include all other property destroyed. No, the slave
was regarded IN Il personal view, and not as property
alone, both by the United states Government and
that OF Great Dritian. lie was brought to the conclu-
sion that by the constitution, slaves arc in some cases
10 be considered persons. although the properly Of
the master in them is not to be doubted.
There can be no excitement arising out Of shis SUBJ
jcct. The philanthropst may say line things. lie
may tell us that the slave has the same rights, facui-
ties and hopes, serves the same Creator, and is des-
tined 10 the same end. He believed the slave TO be
moro happy III his present condition than he would be
in any other, and however the philanthropist may at
tempt TO attract towards him the symplthics OF man
kind, the politician could only regard him as a crea-
ture surrounded with political disgualihcations.
ala. RAsDoLPH rose and said his motive in ad-
dressing the House now-indisposi,ion had compelled
him TO be absent when the question was last under
discussion-his motive was, earnestly to request, he
would almost say, adlure-but, certainly, most res
~pectlully AMI earnestly 70 ask, that no member south
Of the Ohio, and west OF the mississippi. would debate
this question that no one would deien, would con-
descend, to debate tho point which had now ARISEN
whether persons can Or eannos be properly or allow