Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1849-01-05
Antonio PachecO come again.

From the Congressional reports of the pro-
ceedings of the House for the 23rd inst, we
extract the following:
The next bill was for the relief of The legal
representatives of Antonio Pacheco.
[This bill was reported February Q, 1918,
by Mr.. Burt, from the Committee on Mill
tary Affairs, and provides for the payment to
the parties named of 81 900, I" this sum be-
ing the value of a slave transported with the
Seminole Indians to the West, by order of
General J%esup."
Two reports accompany the bill the majo-
rity. report by Mr.. Burt, and the minority re-
port by Mr.. Dickey, signed also by Messrs.
Wilson, Fisher, and Marvin. The majority
and the minority agree in the staIement of
the facts in the case, which are thus set forth
by Mr.. Burt, in behalf Of the majority of the
committee:
1T is thus proved that Pacheco was the
owner of a negro slave named Lewis, who
was hired by an officer of the army, duly au-
rhorized from his owner, as an interpreter
and quide 10 the Inflated command of Major
Dade; that he was one of the few survivors
of the disastrous defeat of that command, and
remained, either voluntarily or as a captive,
among the hostile indians, until the spring of
1901 W z lC NV Sh'ii - " -
mole chief, TO one of the military posts in
Florida; that he was then claimed by his
owner and the military commander in whose
control he was refused to deliver him 10 his
owner, and ordered that he be sent with the
Indians to the West, because he deemed his
transportation proper, nasmuch as he was
considered capable of exercising an Injurious
influence over the Indians; and that, in puT-
suance of this order, he was transported to the
West, and his owner thereby deprived Of his
value"
The constitutional and other questions in
volved are deliberately argued by both the ma
iority and the minority OF the committee the
former report the bill, the latter " that the pc
"titioner is not entitled to relief"
Mr.. DICKEY desired the Clerk TO read 81
much of the report as presented the facts o
the case. There was a very elaborate repor
made by the majority Of the committee 70
payment for the slave. The minority in thei
ID port resisted the payment for the slave up
on constitutional grounds. The constitutions
question was deliberately argued both by tn
m inority and the majority. But apart from
the constitutional objections, the minorit,
commended that there was nothing in this cas-
which would constitute a good claim for tn
pa yment for this man Lewis, even if he wer
properly ; anu tuey ConleHueu luIlleI Una
eli; yes had never been recognized as property
and never paid for as such by Congress, ex
cel,t in one solitary case; which occurred a
The, first session of the twenty-eighlh Con
gre SIS. In that instance, the bill was allow
ed to pass on an objection day, by oversight
He himself was a member Of the House a
that time, and being aware that The late dis
tinguished gentleman from Massachusetts
IMI. Adams,] and The gentleman from Ohio
fMH. Giddings,] were watching it, he ha,
not paid particular attention to it. 1t passe,
in the absence of the gentleman from Massa
chulsetts, and for some reason or other it esca
ped the notice of the gentleman from Ohio
and it was the only instance on our legisla
tive records where a slave had been paid fc
as properly. Upon investigation, it woul
be found that cases much stronger than tn
present one had been presented and rejected