The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-09-12

gress has the power to pass any law in relation to the
District OF Columbia, except so for as that law may be
calculated for the peaceful and proper residence OF the
seat OF government within il
If the proposition which is before us, and which
Is TO prevent citizen OF the United States from bring
ing his slave into the District OF Columbia with view to
take him thereafter 10 State OF the Union may be
adopted why may not adopt like provision Tor every
arsenal Tor every custom house. every tort and dock
OF the United Slatesl The very same section Of the
constitution which gave exclusive legislation the
District OF Columbia gave to Congress Jurisdiction over
The forts, asenas and dock yards Of the United States
But II this proposition be adopted. and citizen OF Geor
gia should wish 10 60 to the State OF Mississippi. and
pass through doek.yard Of the United States, he
would have his slave emancpated by this general egsla
ton To this extent is this power SO asserted, to CO.
This, sr is species Of property recognised by The
guarantees to every citizen Of the United States equal
privileges and immuniies with other citizens OF the Uni
ted States The right, them 70 pass with this species OF
unless that right be used in infringement Of local
law sovereign State orbds you to bring this species of
property within her limits, and keep il there for your
right prevent you from exercising the right Of transit
You may pass through any State Of the Union with any
property that you have right to hold, and no State has
through its limits. But here is proposition to deprive
citizens Of the United States Of their property. for claim
ing the right OF transit over neutral lerrtoythrough
the territory held Tor the purposes OF seat OF govern
ment Instead OF comforting this extreme power upon
the Congress Of the United States. very well IN
derstand that i was intended 10 confer exclusive legsla
ion, with view that whatever territory was held for the
seat OF government should be NEUTRAL and not affected by
hostile Legislation on the part OF the State which may sur.
render it If the State of Maryland for instance, sought
vision of the constitution was intended as shield over
The District OF Columbia that every citizen Of the United
States might upon il and enjoy the rights that he
had in the State OF his residence.
am equally opposed 70 both proposhihtonsno not
than the other. am opposed TO both, however
not consent TO fine citizen OF the United States for
ercsng the right that he has to pass through the United
States, or any part OF it, with his property Neither can
consent to deprive him OF his property because he goes
into any part OF the United States with it, And least of
all make this which was intended a neutral Dis
trict where all the citizens Of the United States could
meet upon equal footing-leas of all can thus dis
crmnate against particular species OF property, and the
right Of certain class Of the citizens Of the United
States.
I will not 90 into the general question now. But |
will deny here, at all other times have done, the
power Of the Congress Of the United States to discriminate
You have certain specific powers granted to the federal
government Beyond this you can have none. The
rights OF property were never transferred to the federal
government She has no right to attempt any discrim
MIR. PRATT. Before the question is taken would
say that seems TO me that can satisfy my friend from
the bill now before The bill is that, after certain
date, shall not be lawful to bring into the District Of
Columbia any slave whatever, for the purpose of being
sold Well, sir, that is Of The nvasions proposed by
this act The next is that they shall not be brought
into this District for the purpose OF being placed in de-
pot to Dc transferred e any other State
from Mississippi will perceive that, if this bill passes
any citizen Of the United States holding slaves anywhere
may pass through the District OF Columbia to any-otheT
part OF the United with his saves-may put them here in
depot if the object merely keep them safely, pro-
vided his further object is not TO carry them to
State for the purpose OF selling them merchandise So
that this restriction applies exclusively to the
II does not apply to slaves owner; for, If this bill
passes he will have The priv as he now has OF bring
ing mis- slave into the District OF Columbia he does not
bring him here for the purpose OF selling him here, for
the purpose OF carrying him beyond point to be sold
He place his slaves in depo here II they not
De subsequently carried to any other part OF the United
States 10 be cold merchandise. thought il right that
should explain that the objection which has been urged
BY the senator from mississippi to this part Of the bill
not that seemed 10 me to really exist, except
far as it applies TO the slave dealer.
now, in the same connexion desire to refer 10
hon OF the Maryland law, to which the Senate has not
heretofore been referred II is the 4h section OF the act
OF 1876, which provides
That nothing In this contained shall be construed
taken to affect the right Of person or persons tave
such slave being sold otherwise disposed OF
In this STATE but carried by the owner out Of this State
attempted TO be carried"
Now, il the proposed bill passes, il leaves still in force
the Maryland of 1885, II leaves in force this fourth
section Of the OF 1885, to which have referred and
therefore the senator from Mississippi will perceive that
act of 1896 law OF the District upon the subject OF ala
very, gives the citizens OF the States, by the express
enactment OF this 4th section OF the Maryland law, the
right OF passing through here ad tb either carrying
their slaves here, or beyond here provided that they do
not here for the purpose OF selling those slaves here
and TO actually carry them or attempt 10 carry them be-
yond the District OF Columbia.
Now, sir am in favor OF the amendment offered by
my colleague for the that suppose that the
object OF the laws which desire pass upon this sub
ect is to prohibit the slave trade, but 10 manum
the slave II, therefore, provide by any enact
ment ehectua remedy against the slave trade without
the manumisson Of the slaves is the duty OF Congress
~ Tho Ni he<aA shf truHa N ka
abolished. Now, apprehend the penalty OF the value
OF the slave would be eecua to prevent the slave
trade as the manumssion OF the slave himself. There
fore. II the Senate is desous OF etecng this object, IL
their object be not the manumisson oil the slave the
amendment proposed by my colleague would as efiec-
ually prevent the slave trade would the bill as ii
stands. Now presume senators will not say here that
their object s 10 abolish slavery That is not their OBJ
ec The object OF the bill Is to abolish the slave trade
Now the remedy for that proposed by my colleague,
is eectual that proposed by the bill. and therefore
il is that hope the Senate will concur in the amendment
which has been offered.
Mr.. DAVIS. Of Mississippi. think understood the
case very well before the senator from Maryland ex.
planned il to me- However, do not that the con.
What matters II An individual may pass through here
II the slave is not 10 be sold here or anywhere else.
Where is government 10 get the right TO ask citizen oil
the United States what he is going 10 do with his prop
ertyl What right has the government OF the United
States 10 discriminate in relation TO the character OF prop
Mr. PRATT / did not intend to argue the constitu-
beyond what really the effect Of the law. said ex.
pressly that he was right in supposing that the bill did
prohibit the slave dealer the negro buyer the parties en-
gagged in purchasing these negroes merchandiseit