Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1849-01-18

taken by the army under General Jackson from
the inhabitants of that Territory, in 1914, came
nd for discussion. The slaves had been taken
against the consent of their owners by the mill
tarv power of the nation. ! think there were
about ninety slaves taken from different indlvid-
uals. The proposition was distinct in its char
acter. The object of the bill was to pay for hu
man flesh. myself opened The debate uponit
and stated, as the principal grounds Of my oppo-
stion to it, that slaves were not regarded as prop
city under the Federal Constitution. My ven
cradle and lamented friend, now no more, John
Quincy Adams sustained my positions. Sew
eral southern gentlemen spoke in favor OF the
bill. The Journal is now before inc, and shows
the bill to have been rejected, by vote of one
hundred and thirteen to thirty six This was
done by a Wing Congress. Not one of that par
ty from the free States voted for the bill.
have now given history Of onr legislation
on this subject. There was bill passed this
body, "s sub Sitentto," Oh one of thuse days when
there is, by the rules of the House, no discussion,
by which payment was made for slave. MyI
friend from Pennsylvania Mr.. Dickeyl has stat
ed the facts in regard to it. knew that such
bill was pending, and so did Mr.. Adams; and
we had mutually agreed to oppose its passage :;
but it slipped through unnOticed, and therefore,
constitutes no precedent.
In 1913 a bill passed this body to pay over
moneys obtained by Government from Great
Britain, and held in trust by us, to be paid to
the owners OF slaves lost On beard the Comet and
Encomium. This bill also passed the Senate,
and became law. At the last session we pas
sed two bills to pay over moneys held in trust
for the same purpose. These ctses were not to
take the treasures of the people of the free States
to pay for slaves, but TO pay over moneys that
did not belong to lis. but which we held for the
use of those who claimed it, But from the
dawn of the evolution to this day, being more
than seventy years, this House has expressed
but one opinion on this subject. They have at
all times refused 10 tue The peop!e Qfhe North TO
pan for the slapes Of The South. We have never
regarded them as property. But an attempt Is
now making to change the essential elements OF
our Government. Statesmen, now i'll the high
councils Of the nation, deny that "dH men are
c,eatca eq,l1l :" that "hey are endolred By their
Creator tc,th The mdiienuJie right 10 their ltueS and
their berries :" Or, that Governments are tnsti
ipted cmong men 10 secure The enjoyment Of those
r,ghtS' 1t is now urged, that this Government
was instituted for the purpose Of robbing men Of
those rights or disroblng portion of our race
of their humanity. and reducing them to the
state of butes, and making them the property of
others. Will northern members assist to com.
init this outrage upon the honor of the nation
and constitutional rights Of northern States Is
there a member from The free States who will
vote to tax his constituents to pay for the blood,
and bones, and muscles, of southern slaves? If
So, let them place their names on record in favor
Of this BILL and let that record descend to com.
ing generations, as n lasting mcmento of the
principles which guide them.
have now referred to the history of our legisla-
ton on this subject. The action of our com
mi.tees was well commented upon by my friend
from New Hampshire, Mr.. Wilson. wish,
however, to add a few words on this point. am
not aware that any committee of this House ev-
er reported in favor of paying for slaves, until
the first session of the 9th Congress-being
more than IS years from the formation Of the
Government.
III 1880, my predecessor, the Hon. f. Whit
tesey reported upon the case of Francis Larche
This was the case alluded to by the gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Burt understood
him to say that the slave of LorcheHwos not I'M
pressed.
Mr.. Burt. The gentleman il mistaken.
Mr.. Giddings. | take it back then.
Mr. Burt. The statement which | made was
this ; that no case could be adluced in which
refusal to pay UI slave had been nsudo tn,
ground that he is not property The gentleman
is totally mistaken.
Mr. Giddlngs. certainly understand the
gentleman now, and refer particularly to the
case of D'Autrieye, which was rejected on this
identical point. The Committee Oh Claims o
the Senate wide Rep. II. r. 40l, LIST session
2lst Congress) say, in distinct language, tina
the cart horse, and negro man Antoine, belong
ing to the petitioner was impressed, and sent tt
the lines Of the American Army, on the LIST da,
of January, 1915, where the negro man wa
killed by a cannon ball from the British batter
les"
The gentleman from South Carolina Nj
Burt assures us that he was not impressed.
can hardly suppose that he was authorized thu
distinctly to deny the accuracy Of that report, il
Il matter of fact, However that may be, it
certain that the committee understood that til
man was impressed. They therefore acted up
on that hypothesis: and with that belief the CON
mttee unanimously reported against the BILL
No stronger case can be imagined. The horst
cart, and negro, were impressed as the commit
/ tee reported and believed. The petitioner wa
paid Tor the properiy-that is, the horse and car
: but the claim for the slave was rejected. Ie
sir. they had not the advantages Of knowing tn
7 sentiments of the trainers of the Constitutio
} which we possess. They were unconscior
5 that the members of the Convention declare
s that they ought to be careful to give no san
Y ton to slaueyy;" that they should do nothing b
which al could be implied that SLAVES lrere pro-
f ery :" "that it was ,orong to admit that the
d could be property IN man." repeat, that to til
$ best of my knowledge, land | have bestowt
Il much labor on the subject no report was mac
in favor of paying for slaves from the publ
c treasury during the first half century which tn
d Government existed under the present Const
d tuition.
g In the 9th Congress, the claim of James Wa
:. son for slaves was committed to the Commits
e of Claims. of which was myself chairman,
e The friends Of the claim, by some means, lear
to ed that that committee had always report
l. against the payment for slaves. They theI
D. fore obtained the Transfer of that case to t
Committee on Indian Affairs, who reported
3 bill to pay for the slaves claimed by Watson.
h. That report, made seven years since, was t
h. first in favor of paying for slaves as property,
in far as my knowledge extends, ever made to Il
lis body. During the same session, report frC
he the Committee OIL Territories was made of I
. /" bill for the relief OF the people OF Nest Flo
al d. to which have already alluded, and viii
NJ WIS rejected by the House.
le- Mr. Burt, Will the gentleman allow me
in floor moment?
les Mr.. Gddings. With pleasure.
lat Mr. Burt. | stated in committee the ot
NV day, in reply to the nterrogatory Of the gent
his man from Ohio, that Mr. WhttIesey, in his
N. polt on Larche's case, quoted the report Of
en- Se1ate. | stated further, that Mr.. Williams
IL when the gentleman from Ohio alluded, mad
ION report in the Senate, on tie case of Larche, 8
ow ing that there was no evidence that the sl
in had been impressed at all. stated further, I
ion had examined the Senate files in that ca
dill and that there is no evidence there, except
er. depOstons OF one or two men. lin the ahsel