The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-03-19

clear; for the injury to precisely the same, wheth
or Britain recognises property in human beings, or
mott but the e6ence on part of Br ain is surely
mitigaed, and is less, when we reflect that for
more than half century, it has been the known
Law of England, and published to the whole
civilized world, that the moment a slave from
almost any cause whatever, touches British soil,
his condition is instantly changed and he be-
comes, by their laws, ipso taeto freeman. Nov,
since the celebrated case of the negro Sommsr-
set, we have known, and all the world has known,
that slaves, cast upon their shores by wind and
waves, or by any of the accidents OF life are pro-
nounced freemen, in all countries in which British
laws prevail and no questions the British per-
feet right to establish such law within her own do
minons. Nor does Britain pretend to question our
right to establish entirely different law within our
dominions. The two rights are perfectly equal and
unquestionable If this be case, the slaves were
ipsO acto freemen, the very instant they came with
in the fauces of the British island they So just
much when on board of the Creole, as if they had
been landed-and just as much though the American
flag waved over them, as if they had all been COM
fortably housed on shore Doubtless the intention of
the American consul was to obtain pretection-but
aTIn Vi the CtCt, az well al Ol Tie was
sought-an investigation of judicial nature took
place; the msutineers imprisoned, but to await
further orders-and the rest permitted to escape
Now does this materially differ from the doctrine in
Sommersets case' The innocent portion of the
slaves were absolutely and at free by the Bri
fish law, as settled in that case the guilty were
criminal, only by the american law, for the crime
committed by them offended law of England,
though it were murder and mutiny. England, in
deed, has similar law, but the law that violated
was the American law-which is local, having ex-
ira territorial operation whatever, settled in
Henry Blackstone, p 1913, 1876; c. Maui & Sell
win, p. SO. The State of Massachusetts vs.. Green,
II Mass. Rep. 5l4, 542; Scoville VS.. Garfield, Ia
Johnson's New York Rep. 1888; and hundred 9TH
ers. Now, again--if confidence were reposed by
the American Consul, and violated by the British
hortes, that confidence not to have been very
explicitly stated; and if grossly violated
as it probably was, still it could have no other opera
ton than to give additional strength to the conceded
claim to indemity-we say conceded because first, the
British, in the exercise of their undoubted right of
considering all free within their own domn-
ions, (and hence not property in their view,) have no
right to make their law extra territorial and destroy
the property rights Of others. 1t is not sufficient
therefore, for Britain in such this to say
that because slaves not property with them, they
shall never be regarded property in those whose
laws have made them property. Britain, indeed,
may free them, whenever found within their domin.
ons-and if found there as mere volunteers, claim
would arise for indemnity; but if there, in any de-
gree in inpitum, claim to full indemnifcation ne
cessarily arises. And secondly regard this con-
ceded, because Britain has often, since Somersets
case, admitted them to be property under our laws,
and such to be paid for, whenever she would pay
for any other goods and chattes, in any way appro
priated to her use. Hence, during the last war;
whenever Britain would pay for provisions, other
things taken by them she made exception in the
of saue but respected laws and dealt with them
as chattels. And where liberated within her
own dominions, (under any circumstances of mtiga-
ton, in the Bermuda, in those of the Enco-
MUM, the Comet case &C., she regarded slaves as pro-
perty, and Unidentified, and would indemnity their
owners; and so, doubtless, she will voluntarily do in
the case of the slaves of the Creole. The writer is
tenderly alive to the delicacy of this question: which
he has endeavored to discuss earlessy and canddly
and with Partially to Britain or the least of preiu-
dice against slavery. He is one of those who has
carefully examined the scripture authority in respect
to slavery-and truly believes that no one can find in
those sacred volumes any warrant for lis condemna-
ton as an institution of society-and that Consti-
ttonal right it is impregnable, and should admit of no
discussion ,cheper With this firm conviction, and also
to the evil tendencies of the Abolition principles, in
epey ,oheuer the writer nevertheless cannot close
his eyes to the evidences daily afforded, as to the
morbid sensitiveness of the South upon this subject
and the general tendency of the nation at large to be
excited, whenever this unhappy topic is in any way
connected with foreign or domestic policy Nations
like individuals, often led astray by feelings BY
specious arguments, by false issues, by play upon
words-by their sound rather than their sense and
hence arises many idle diversities of opinion among
nations, similar to those which so often figure, with
great vehemence, among individuals. Our train of
thought largely fashioned by laws our nstitu-
tions religion, literature, and finally by infinite
variety Of circumstances and it as vain hope
to look for homogenity of thought upon such point
that of slavery, upon that of religion in general
All that we have right to insist upon, and shall
insist upon that nation shall interfere with
our domestic institution. SLAVERY is one of ours
UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION is one of theirs--and each
is right ,cthin the limits only of their respective domi-
Mons; the moment it is made, by either party, to
transcend those boundaries each does wrong and the
whole difficulty arises from the practical exercise Of
the policies, respectively, of the two nations. So ma
ny just causes of apt to arise, from time to
timc not only with England, but with other nations,
that should be careful not to grauitously multiply
them. But should Britain ever dare, in any way, to
interfere with our internal police to slavery, or
any thing else-should she insist upon the right Of
search beyond the doctrine commended for, when at
peace and she at war-should she again impress
our seamen, or now, under the garb of ristation