Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1848-11-23

TIU59E5JTnJ gXCTNYIVP DOVE
er OF Legislation over the Territories has no
control over it, But the pretension does not
stop hero 1t IL snd that the citizens of the
saVeholding States have right 10 carry their
institutions into the Territories of the United
States, and that yon have no power to prevent
Il. When this pretension is set up, the question
becomes this not whether the citizens of the
United States have right to emgrate to this
territory with their property, but whether they
have right TO carry with them their peculiar
domestic and municipal regulations and subsi.
tnte them for the laws which you choose to es-
tablish Such doctIine would place the slave
holding power above the legslating power. If
they have right to claim exemption within your
Territories from the operation of your laws they
may claim right to follow your armies in yonr
career OF conquest, and to plant the standard of
slavery upon every inch of the wide domain
which your power and your ambition combined
may bring under your dominion. Instead of ex-
tending the area Of freedom, you would carry
a6rold the standard of slavery; while the sluve-
holding power thus stalking in the wake OF your
victorious aamies, and appropratng to itself your
successive acquisitions, would render itself CO.
extensive and coeya with the boosted "destines'
of this country. Sir, [ soemnly protest against
the pretenson which tramples Legislative power
under foot--whch sets all human authority at
desiance, an arrogates to itself the right to ex-
tend its peculiar institutions wherever it chooses
to plant its footsteps Sir, before admit this
doctrine, Objectionable as it Is to me, and the
Senator will permit NE to add, offensive rs it is
to the people of great portion of this Union
wish to see the foundation upon which this pre-
tension rests; desire to see the clause in the
Constitution which ties your hands and mine.-A
1t is insisted that tho Constitution recognizes this
species Of property. How does it recognize it ?
In the first place, It recognizes slaves as persons
held to servltudc, persons entitled TO represent
tatlon in these Halls. They are at this moment
represented here as portion of the population
OF this Union, and yet we are told they are prop
ery-mere merchandise. If these people are
persons and not property, upon what principle is
it commended, that when they engrate to your
Territories they do not go there subject to the
laws which prevail there. The fallacy of the
argument consists in the denomination that is
given to them in surprising them property, such
as Is recognized by the common Judgment oil tho
civilized world. 1t consists IN putting them up
on footing which they ought not 10 occupy,
and which no logic can make them occupy
Tho constitution recognises the institution 50 far
thls 1t authorizes the recapture of slaves, or
to use the language Of the constitution, "per-
sons held to service" Il is mere recognition
ofthe rights of the master in the State where he
resides, and upon whose municipal regulations
his rights rest. But how far does this provision
90 Ia recognising the ri yht of slavery? 1t goes
no farther than have mathematician simply
to authorize the recapture of persons escaping.
Suppose the master choose to take his slave into
free State, what becomes of his right? Why,
as Senator from Georgia himself observes, 1t
is voluntary manumlssion. | would like TO
ask the honorable Senator where he finds the
provision which authorizes the extension OF this
institution by Its own voluntary act, not only
without the sanction, but in defiance of local
legislation? This right Of recapture is one
thing, and the right to transport slaves from one
State or territory to ano,her, and plant the Inst-
tuition there, Is another thing; and while the
honorable Senator claims this right ofrecapture,
he is forced to admit that voluntary removal to
u territory where slavery is not recognized, a.
mounts to manumlssion. The recognition OF the
Constitution falls infinitely short Of the concu-
sion TO which the honorable Senator from
Georgia comes. He claims the right to
plant the seeds Of this institution IN Oregon
Yes sir, to plant them every where and while
you are extending the "area Of freedom" he is
covering that e" area OF freedom" with cloud of
slavery. repeat the question: In what provis-
ion OF the Constitution Is such doctrine to be
found? In what provision can you find the ba-
sis from which such an inference can be drawn?
Ma. BUTLER.-l would ask the honorable
Senator whether he supposes, that the mere
passing from a slavehodng State, with slaves,
amino reuertendi, would render them free?
Mr.. PuELPs. i hold that the master who takes
his slaves into free jurisdiction, whether it be
animo reUerendi or not, emancipates them; and
hold that this cmanci patton does not depend
upon the will OF the master, hut rests upon the
principle OF a change of jurisdiction. The mas
ter, 10y placing himself and his slaves in any ju-
rlsdcton, subjects himself his slave, and the
relation between them, to the local laws Of that
Jurisdiction. The same result would follow if
the slave escapes In the absence of the con-
stitutional provision Tor recaptnre, the fugitive
slave, arriving upon the soil where slavery Is not
Recognised, becomes free. This is the doctrine
OF the English common law. We have been
familiar with II fro!n our childhood. need not
repeat the language OF the celebrated IRISH ora
tor, with which all are familiar, to establish the
position tn II the Monent a slave sets foot upon
the soil OF England the shackes fall.
We have proof OF this in recent transaction
The slaves OF the Creole who mutned, over
paw erred their masters, and took refuge in New
Providence, were not surrendered by the British
Government, but your application was refused.
The same thing occurred in the case of the
slaves of the a nlstad she refused to regard
them as property, and declared them free. Tnis
doctrine, believe, has been sanctioned every
where Wherever there has been anything like
judicial action on the subject thEs been recog-
nlzed by your own Supreme Court. Sir, | am
asked it | approve OF this doctrine thus held by
the Court l answer without hesitation, yes;
because the converse of that doctrine would
place the slave power above all the institutions
of this government. Ii the converse OF this
doctrine were TO obtain, and the property OF the
master IN MS slave were to be recognized every
where, It would DO IN the power OF the slave
owne:, by simple transfer of what no calls
property, to establish the Institution in any of the
States, IN disregard OF Its laws, and IN ucfince
( of the wishes anl p1wer OF the people. Suca a
result is too m1nstrous to be claimed on the ono
hand, or admitted on the other. rne plovisiun
OF the Constitution for the reclamation of fugi-
tives, so often cited as imposing Constitutional
reco snltlun OF slavery, Is itself founded upon the
very doctrine for winch contend. Wltaout
this doctrine tho provision is Unnecessary. 1t 10
because th1 relation of master and slave is not
ncco snL ID, AMI would not be enforced out Of
the Jurisdiction toleratlng slavery, that the pro-
vlslop oecane necessary. Sir, the doctrine for
which contend ID that upon winch the whole
slayehodng portion vi the Union have relied
tor the protection OF their peculiar institutions,
and OF that species Of properly which Is incident
TO them. Ii slaves are to be recognized as mere
property mere merchandise what shall prohlb-
! II Congress, IN the exercise of Its admitted pow
er to regulate CON nerce, from regulating the
traffic among the SlaIes9 Sir, II ID upon this
/ nj Nh mi ola Ylrn.