Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1849-01-19
Speech of J. R. GiddingS.

The following extracts are from the speech
of ]. r. Giddings, made in Congress on the
9th inst, on a motion to reconsider the vote
on the bill providing for the payment of the
slave of Antonio Pacheco.
Mr.. GIDDlNGS said, that when on a for.
mer day he yielded the floor for an adjourn
ment, he was saying that great and important
principles lay at the foundation Of our Gov
eminent. Those who formed it declared the
object and Interior design of this and Of all
civilized governments. That design was,
"to insure to all men (residing under our ju-
risdiction) the enjoyment IF life, liberty, and
the pursuit Of happiness" Are we to to-day
(sald he) carrying out these objects! Here,
sir, are two hundred aud thirty American
statesmen legislating for the benefit Of Stare
ry. There is no evading this plain and OBJ
vious fact. No subterfuge can hide it from
the people. The powers OF government were
Instituted by our patriot fathers, for the eX-
press purpose Of securing to all for whom we
legisIale the blessings of liberty. We are
now sitting here to compensate the oppressor
Of his fellow-man for his inability to continue
his power over the victim Of his barbarous
cupidiiy. Tn members who vote for this
bill will give unmistakable evidence OF their
appreciation Of slavery, and their willingness
10 sustain it.
After the close of the late war with Eng
land, a bill was pending in this House, pro-
viding for the payment of property lost or de-
stroyed during that war. When the section
providing for the payment of horses, carts,
&C., impressed into the public service and de-
stroyed, Mr.. Maryant, from South Carolina,
moved to amend the bill so as to embrace
slaves. The motion was opposed by Mr.
Yancy and Mr.. Robertson, and was negati-
we'd by a large majority. (See National In
telligencer, December %, 1850 This was
a motion so to amend this bill as to pay for
slaves if killed in the public service, when
they had been impressed. | have heard north
ern members express the opinion, pending
ihis bill, that we ought to pay for slaves, il
lost, when they were impressed into the ser
vice. Sir, such was not the case thirty-6ve
years since. Our predecessors then spurned
the proposition. Where now is the feeling,
the spirit, which animated them? We have
no record Of the speeches., but every mem
Der will see that the case proposed was the
strongest case that could be imagined. j
was where a slave was taken against The will
of the master, and pressed into the service
dhu NV " az ShNhlls L CT iltl ttIECltI
the proposition by a large majority. The
claim before us is of incompaTably less force
Here the master hired the slave, at a higl
price, TO go with the troops as a guide, anc
of course took upon himself all risks.
The next case was that of D'Autrieve.-
He had claims against the United States fo
wood and other nscessaries furnished The ar
INV, and for the loss Of time and the eXpenst
of nursing a slave who was wounded in tht
service of Government at New Oheans.-
This case is more interesting from the fact
that there was at that time an attempt, as OF
the present occasion, to break down that well
known principle in our Constitution, tina
"~slaves are persons and not property"
The Committee on Claims at that tim,
Qs2s) was composed of four norIhern ant
three southern men. At lis head was an hon
orable southern man, who served his countr.
longer in this body than any other that eve