Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1839-05-08

ION of property a qualification Tor vote?
but does it therefore follow that the peo
pie of Massachusetts may not, by The use
Of their RICH, of free discussion, convince,
if possible, their neighbors cf Rhode
Island, that their law is absurd, unjust,
and anti-republicanl The people Of r.
Island, on the other hand, ha&e no power
by direct e1isIation 10 change the laws Of
Massachusetts in relation 10 libel and
basphemy; but may they not in the spir-
it bequcathed to them by that great apoS-
tie OF civil ana religious liberty. ROGER
WILLIAMS, strive, by any constitutional
means, to persuade the sons OF the pill
grims, that those laws are antlquated in
their provisions, and partake of the lntoI-
Grant spirit Of despolic and darker age2
And wherein would such course differ
from that pursued by aboitiontasDin rela
ton to slavery in the southern States! In
nothing.
At the risk of rendering my letter
wearisome to you, must notice one of the
prominent arguments in The address of
the democratic members of Congress,
against the abolition of slavery in the
District of Columbia. am, as you know,
democrat myself, and it is because | am
one, and because perusel with the high
est satisfaction the transferable argu-
ments contained in that address on the
prominent political questions of the day,
that feel mortified that the strength and
excellence of that document should have
been marred by such anli-republican SEN
timents and puerile logic, as are embrac-
ed in tina; portion Of it relating to the
subject of slavery. The argument TO
which ] aiIude is this, that the govern
ment of the United States, being a gov
eminent of limited and specific: powers,
granted for the common good of all the
States, Congress, In the exercise of those
powers. ought not to give the domestic
institutions of one State or section, pref
erence over the domestic institutions Of
another State or section; AID that for
Congress to abolish slavery in the Dis
trict of Columbia, would be giving pref
erence 10 the domestic free institutions OF
the North over the domestic slave institu-
tons of the South. Now, although do
not assent to the correctness of the above
doctrine, still am willing, for the sake
of the argument, TO admit it 10 be tenable
How then stands the case? If to abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia be tc
give a preference to free over slave ins:i
tutions, it follows necessarily, that TO es
tablish slavery there is giving a prefer.
ence to slave over free institutions. What
then, can Congress constitutionally dc
upon the subject of slavery in the Distric
Of Columbia? If it abolish slavery there
it gives a preference 10 the domestic free
institutions of the non-slaveholding State.
over the domestic slave institutions Of tn,
slaveholding States If it establish o
continue slavery there, it gives prefer
ence TO the slave over the free institution
of the different portions Of the country
Thus we see Congress, which, by TIT
Constitution, possesses exclusive legisla
: lion in all cases whatsoever in the District
constitutionaIiy restricted from legislalin!
upon one of the most important interest
which presents itself there! But Con
: gtess has legislated on this subject. an
has established slavery in the District c
Columbia. When the District was cele
to the United States, by Virginia an
Maryland, and it thus came under tn
Jurisdiction of Congress, the slave laws @
: those States ceased to have any force Their
! until they We're re-enacted by Congress;
Congress has done, therefore, the YER
9 thing which the authors of this addreS
say it has no right to do-has given, i
; mockerv of all those principles Of huma
/ right and human liberty, upon which tn
e government is based, preference to th
o domestic slavery Of the South, over tn
= free republican institutions of the North
o The duty of Congress. then, is, accordin
y 10 the doctrine of this address, TO repei
u its laws establishing slavery there, an
/ leave that subject to take care of ITSELF
e To this, at least, we are certainly enttle
s at the hands of those who sustain tn
e doctrine | have been considering. w
II will hold them to il, while we say tot
d author of the address, as did Graliano
y Shyiock:
"a y Daniel still say I second Daniel
Of / thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word
,e But the doctrine itself is unsound.
5 is true that our national government
ID one of limited and specific powers, so {.
Sc as it respects lis action upon the State
tit but it is not so with respect to the DlstrI
es of Columbia. The grant of legislati
re power there, is as unlimited as the pow
i'd and subjects of legislation can be, and w
- granted for the benefit OF the people
Sc the United States and OF the District
n Now what great principles should COVE
ne in the legislation OF the supreme legis!
on tive body of the free republic Of Anne
IL ca? Should they be that all men q
he created equaI-that they are endowed
ge their Creator with certain inalienal
nir r;nh,. ,hn,-nr,nn,nrr hose n 70 LIE Liner