Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1848-06-15

OuI CIllZehs, an obtaining Stlpulatlon NOh
oreIgn Government to pay those citizens their
several demands, as certified on list to be made
out. Until after 1922, it was not contemplated
that Great Britain should pay the money to our
Government, but should pay the citizens lndi-
vdually, taking their personal discharges as
vouchers for the same
The Commissioners performed the duty oil
their appointment, and reported list OF claims
in favor of great number of individuals, with
the sums due to each, the whole amounting to
81 ,204 900. This business did not come to
conclusion till 1926, when, the amount having
been settled Great Britain became anxious to a.
void the trouble of paying out large number of
comparatively small sums, while our Executive
was DESTROYS to promote a convenient settlement
of the demands in favor of the citizens of the
United States, Accordingly, a new and final
Convention was agreed upon, November 18th,
1926, by which England agreed to pay, and did
pay to our Government the full amount reported,
and received full discharge from all clam I'M
der the treaty Such is the history OF the fund,
as the Committee please to call 1t, upon which
they are Of opinion that this petitioner has
claim. 1t will be perceived that there is no such
fund as the Committee imagine but that the
money obtained is the property of individuals;
and that if any balance remains in the Treasury,
it stands to the credit of individuals, who may
at any moment call for and receive the same
Could we appropriate the sum recommended to
this petitioner we should actually take the phi
vate property Of one person, and give it to an
other
But this claim ought not to be recognized,
because it does not appear that 1t was such an
one as could have been embraced in the stlpnla-
tions of Great Britain, had it been presented to
our Secretary of State and the Commissioners
Great Britain was liable for only such slaves as
were in their possession, on land or sea, on the
date of signing the treaty. 1t does not appear
that the slave in question remained on board
their fleet until December, 1914, and it is by no
means probable that he did. The only fact that
we know from the report is, that the slave went
away; but whether by the invitation or by the
compulson of the English does not appear;
whether he was white or black, is not reported.
The fact that he was a slave, and became free
man, is made out; and on this fact we are ask
ed to prove our sympathy by taking the common
treasure of the country to indemnify the owner.
have thus far examined this claim as ! would
that of any other claim for the destruction or
loss of property and think that have shown
that it comes within no stipulation or obligation
which we are authrized to recognize. But, sir !,
| resist the claim on other grounds. | deny that
one man can have property in another Such an
assumption is contrary to the laws of nature and
of God, and repudiate and discard it, here and
elsewhere, now and forever
Acting as member Of this body, and as
citizen of the United States, am under no OBJ
legation to do violence to my reason or to the
laws of God; and whenever / am asked to lend
my assistance to any claim for the pay of slaves,
| shall resist, on the ground that men are not
property
Mr. RHETr. l inquire of the gentleman,
whether the right of property in slaves is not
recognized in the Constitution of the United
States!
Mr. Tuck. No, sir; on the contrary, the idea
is excluded The Constitution is a guaranty Of
Liberty aid not of Slavery. The Declaration
of Independence is the foundation upon which
the Constitution stands and that declares that
"alI men are created free and equal, and have
certain indhendbc rights, among which are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" The Con-
stitution contains nothing different from this
Slavery existed in this country at the time Of
forming the Constitution, but the fact cannot be
proved from anything contained in that instru-
ment. All men are created free; Liberty is the
gift of God, and not the boon of any earthly
power. These truths lay at the foundation OF
our Revolutionary achievements, and they can
never be safely lost sight Of in the progress of
our career If the gentleman will consult the
debates in the Convention to form the Consttu-
ton, he will find that the language of those parts
of it, which are supposed to refer to slavery,
L. Il otbo hoon
that, by this language, the idea would not be
countenanced that one man could have property
in another In the days Of the Revolution, there
were no advocates of slavery no statesman who
did not depore slavery as an lnexpresslble evl.
They drank too freely from the unadulterated
fountains of Liberty, Truth and Humanity, to
countenance any such notion. l hold IN my
hand slavehoding authority, that those who
formed the Constitution guarded against the idea
that there can be property in man. In the Mad
ison Papers, where Mr. Madison reports the dis
cussons in the Convention, find the following,
as part of the discussion on that clause which
alludes to the migration or importation of per-
sons:
"Mr. Gerry thought we had nothing to do
with the conduct of the States as to Slavery,
but we ought to be careful not to give it any
sanction.
"Mr. Sherman was opposed to any tax on slaves
imported, as making the matter worse, because
it implied they were property.
"Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in
the Constitution the idea that there could be
property in man."
The clause was then modified from its origin
al shape, agreeably to the wishes of Mr.. Madi-
son, and adopted as it now stands. 1t is by the
assumptions and aggressions of the Slave Pow
er that the Constitution is come to be spoken OF
as containing compromises in favor of slavery
1t was only by being kept out of the Constitu
ton, that slavery was saved from express con-
demnation The whole spirit of the Declare
ton of Independence and of the Constitution is
one whitening blast of condemnation of all such
establishments as imply human bondage If il
were not so, we have come to that age of the
world when we should strike for better Dec
laration and better Constitution. No, sir the
Constitution does not recognize property in man
and Congress have no power to act on that a
bominable presumption.
This idea of property in man being recogni
zed in the Constitution is repudated by the