The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1848-03-25


Mumford's Rep. 1893; 5th Reads Rep. l26
Walkers Mississippi Rep. Sc. In the latte
case, the court says:
"Siarery is Condemned by reason and the lo,c,
Of Nature. Ii erists and can ssist, only througi
municipal regulstions."
Property may be taken by the owner from one
State TO another, or from one nation to another
but, II man volu ntarily take his slave. or send
him to free State, the moment he enters such
Stale, he becomes freeman. From that mo-
ment his masters power over him ceases, and
he can NO more be ensayed. ...
And the practice Of Government has been ia
conformity with this principle, that there could
be no property in men. The legislative branch
Of Government has never regarded slaves as
property nor has any claim for the payment Of
slaves, either lost or killed in public service,
been paid by law Of Congress, except, perhaps,
! In one or two instances. The only law which
the undersigned have found, is the case Of Dep
oyster, which passed the House Of Representa-
tives. roithoat discussion or sIaminsfion, al the
| LIST session, 2sth Congress, (see laws of that
session.
IL cannot, therefore. be- called or considered a
precedent. The case Of Francis Larche settles
the question. The petitioner owned . slave,
cart and horse, which were in his service, aud
on tie day of the battle Of New Orleans they
were impressed into the public service by the
commanding oflicer--the negro and horse were
killed, and the cart broken by the shot of the
A ais h. a.
out The owner did not hire his slave to Gov
rrnn,ent, but the. slave had been impressed
against the will Of the owner. Yet Southern
and Northern men united, (s,v House Reports,
1 session, 2lst Congress, Vol. 3. No 40l > in re-
fusiug to pay for the slave, because il would
overiurn the usage Of the Government
"'rhey say, in their report, that they had caus-
ed examination 10 be made at the Treasury De.
Partnent, to see IL slaves who had been killed
| IA public service during the revolutionary war,
had been paid for; and they learned that no such
Instance could be found. They also cite q num-
Der of cases where claims were made for slaves
allied and those who died in the public service.
eurug the war Of 1912, all Of which were re-
lectni.
On the 9th Of April 1876, the House refused
vice. in act to pay for property lost, captured,
ar destroyed, by the enemy, while In the militia
4 ny service of the United States. On the 26th
January, 1875, II affirmed the same doctrine.
| At the 2d session of the 27th Congress. provis-
ions were made TO pay for slaves taken from
their owners in West Florida, by Gen. Jackson.
! The House rejected them II dec ided that slaves
were persons. not property But there is no need
/ of multiplying cases. The principle aud usage
Of Government in this respect uniform
Nor eau they be violated, without uprooting
the very basis on which our Federal compact
rests.
| The COMMITTEES proceed to lay down these
doctrines:
| That slavery Is local.
! That the Federal Government has no right
| to interfere with it in the States
Nor has il the right to involve the free States
IN its support.
! They affirm their view, Me resolution
adopted, almost unanimously by the the House
of Representatives Dec, 1888:
"Resolved, That this GorernBsat IS a Govern
msat Of limited pOEsrs; that by the Constitution
Of the United States, a. has posvsT shdteper
,he institution Of siartTy IN the sepsrai States o.
this Union"
| The Committee conclude
Ii seemed to have been tho unanimous opin
ion of statesmen, that Congress possessed NJ
powers whatever in relation TO slavery. A dis
tinguished Senator, in speaking before that body
on this subject, in 1889, said" According tG
the compromises Of the Constitution, no powell
whatever was granted 10 the Federal Govern
ment in respect to domestic slavery, but tina
which relates TO taxation, representation, and
the power to restore fugitive slaves. All otheI
power" said he, "in regard 10 the institution Of
slavery, was retained exclusively by the States >
This was spoken in the presence Of that Learned
body; and no member, 1t Is believed, either de
MED or doubted the doctrine advanced.
The undersigned entertain the same senti
ments. They feel that to legisate for the pay
ment Of slaves by the Government, or to appro
. pirate the funds Of the nation, drawn, in part
from the freemen Of the North, for such 4 pur
pose, would be to involve the people Of the fire.
States in the support Of an institution which
they have discarded. which they regard a. wrong
, TO which they are, morally and reigiously op
, posed, and from the evils and burdens Of whcl
they are most obviously exempted by the con
siitutional compact.
| The undersg ned are not unconscious that tn
last clause of the second section Of the fourt
article of the Constitution has been referred to
| to show that the Constitution has involved tn
|, free States in the support Of slavery. This
however, if true, must b., limited to the terms I
: which that clause extends. II has no other re
e ference to slavery than regards fugitive slaves
and cannot properly be construed as extendin
further. But we find, by the history Of its adop
ton, that the trainers were careful not TO involv
the people of the free States in the arrest n
I turn of fugitive slaves. The covenant on III
part Of the free States is, that they will pass
law or regulations, nor do any acts, to reliev
> such fugitive from the service OF his master.-
!, When that clause Of the Constitution was befor
o the Convention, member from North Carolin
, moved to amend 1t so as to make II the duty {
:, the people of the free States to arrest and In
prison fugitive slaves, In the same manner I
o they were bound to arrest fugitives from justic
r Bat Mr.. Wilson, of Penn lvania, objected thu
such provision would Involve the people Of th
free States in the expense Of arresting and In
u prisoning slaves, and the amendment was rejee
d ted.
- This il conclusive to show that no acts wei
to be done by the people OF the free States !
favor of fugitive slaves. Indeed this very stiPI
9. lation is to abstain from action. So clearly
l. that intention expressed the face Of the Col
:. stitution, that the Supreme Court Of the Unite
!. States, in the case Of Prigg vs.. Commonweal'
Of Pennsylvania, declared the States incomP
10 tent 10 iepislate on the subject, and that II
last clause Of the section. which says they shs
d, be delivered up on claim Of the party to who
such service or labor may be DUE" imposes VI
on the people Of the free States no other oblig
81 ton than peaceably ard quietly to permit q
Iy holder of the slave to enter such State and pu
sue and take his slave without molestation
hindrauce. To the extent, then, Of abstainiI
from, all u articipation In aiding the sIaye TO 9