Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1848-03-24
The Slave Of AntOnia PaCheCO.

The attention of Congress has been called
to the claims Of Pacheco, whose petition was
referred TO the Committee on Military Affairs.
The facts in the case are thus stated in the
report of said committee.
'sPacheco was the owner of a negro slave
named Lewis, who was hired by an officer of
the army, duly authorized, from his owner,
as an interpreter and guide TO the defeated
command of Major Dade that he was one Of
the few survivors OF the disastrous defeat of
that command, and remained either volunta-
rily or as a captive amongst the hostile In
dams until the spring of 1887, when he ac-
companied Jumper, a Seminole chief, TO one
OF our military posts in Florida /; that he was
then claimed by his owners; and the military
commander, in whose control he was, refused
to deliver him TO his owner, and ordered that
he be sent with the Indians 10 the West; be-
cause he deemed his transportation proper,
inasmuch as he was considered capable Of
exercising an injurious influence over the In
dians; and thus, in pursuance of this order,
he was transported to the west, and the own
er thereby deprived of his value"
The claimant doubtless supposed that no
better appropriation could be made of the
funds of a slaveholding government, than to
pay him for his lost slave in which opinion
a majority of the Committee concurred, and
recommended Uncle San TO open his purse
strings far enough 10 satisfy the demand
To this, a minority of the Committee demur-
red, and in "A report which is before us, state
their objections at length, backing up their
opinion by the quotation Of various authori-
ties, and asserting the correctness of the fol-
lowing conclusions.
Firstly.-That, admitting the man Lewis
to have been the property Of the petitioner, in
the ordinary acceptation of that term, the cir
cumstances Of this case come within no es-
tablished rule of compensation known in the
practice of this Government.
Secondly.-That Lewis was a prisoner Of
war, and could not properly have been sur
rendered by the military officer in command
to any person claiming him as a slave.
Thirdly.-That slaves, under the provis-
ions of the Federal Constitution, are not re-
garded as property, and ought not TO be paid
for by the Government as such.
Fourthly.-That for Congress to allow
compensation for the man Lewis, would he
to reverse the entire system of legislation on
the SUBJECT WHlcn COntI0lItu ms Dody since
the adoption Of the Constitution, and would
bespeak an instability of purpose which must
necessarily impair the confidence now repo-
sed in us by our constituents.
FiGlhly.-That, by the Constitution of tho
United States, The Federal Government are
not authorized to legislate upon the subject
Of Slavery, or in any manner 10 involve the
people Of The free States in the payment for
slaves.
We have not yet learned what action has
been taken by Congress in The matter, or
whether any has been had and SO far as the
principle is concerned, We care but little
about it. 1t is true that the fathers were ex-
ceedingly careful not to admit into the Con.
s~titution the idea there could be property in
man-even Madison and other Shareholders
were opposed to this, and the Supreme Court
of the United States has been equally careful
TO say it did no, recognize slaves as proper
" but IT'S alsotrue thallhe former has given