The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-03-10

the United oiaes slaves We're 10 be regarded legl
mate property on board OF an American vessel, and
that too the ground that the bottom OF The vessel
took its character from the jurisdiction OF the country
10 which il belonged
he would be apt to think that he had right
to cultivate he pleased and three shareholders and
three shareholders were 10 buy domain from non
saveholdng owner could il be possible that the non
shareholders could claim all the dominion the govern
ment OF the purchased premises lfthey in minor
ity they would not attempt ii II equal they would for
that they would attempt control the other partners 1t
is justice but arbitrary power that makes the lawyers
speak from suggestions.
The gentleman says he has law that must con-
troll this whole question, and has commended it to my
attention. think heard OF il before believe never
read il ill few moments since; but never heard at
rbuted to such potency before nor have ever heard
given TO il such an Interpretation. The gentleman used
il TO show that savehodng State had no right TO carry
its slaves its own territory, II acquired from non,
slaveholding people. have read the case and whilst
admire the gentemans ingenuity, and his kindness in
relieving from the embarassmens OF ignorance or
error, must be permitted to say, that cannot see The
application OF the referred TO. Before notice the
nothing than this that slave owner OF Virginia,
CARRYING his slaves into the Northwest Territory, into
the Territory OF Indiana. before 1887 made his prop
erty in slaves remaining there alter that tme subject 10
the ordinance OF that date and that before that time,
there had been question OF his right to hold them
in such territory, whilst il was province OF Virginia.
is no instance in which the right OF STAKEHOLDER his
slaves questioned in the Northwest Territory
whilst il dependence or province OF Virginia, and
The decision referred turned the operation of that
ordinance discharge slaves from their bondage after il
went into effect The case is found in Walkers Re-
The as oowss giving hs
"The facts In this controvered that the
three negroes slaves in Virginia; that in 7si they
cennes that they remained there from time until
month Of July 1916 thar The ordinance OF Congress
passed In the month Of July, in the l75T and that
the 10Th June, 1916"
These are the essential facts and the real question
the was, whether the defendant could hold the
negroes slaves under the treaty OF Great Britain the
cession Of Virginia. and the constitution OF the United
States in spite OF and in opposition TO the ordinance OF
1887 and the constitution of Indiana, which, in these
terms, set all slaves free that were within the scope of
their operation.
The defendant claimed to have had his rights vested
were protected by the constitution Of the United States
shall not trouble the Senate with minute examination
OF the The defendant claimed under the following
clause particularly "That these titles and posses.
sons rights and liberties shall be secured to them " that
is to the inhabitants residing the territory at the time
OF the cession, which had been made before 7s7 But
the court said that the ordinance could control this spu
laton.
The ordinance provides that there shall be neither
slavery nor involuntary serytude, otherwise than for the
of crimesexcludng all kinds OF servitude
except that which follows conviction The court say,
But according to the construction contended for by the
defendants COUNSEL those who were slaves at the pass
OF the ordinance must continue in the same condition
The court sustain the ordinance, and say that il was
confirmed by the constitution OF Indiana.
| think may conclude by saying that the case is no
prop to the structure Of the genemans general argument
and that argument is the wlckerwork OF old materials
they have been used often that they have lost the
charm and freshness of novelty, and will have TO be
garded the crumbng materials Of ingenious architects
and architects cannot make crumbng sandstone subserve
the place of solid marble.
conclude by saying il nature has excluded the South,
be It sol buff has not give us fair chance, under the
Mr.. WALKER I did not think that any speech from
so humble myself could kick up such "bobbery
this as suppose the honorable senator from South
Carolina would call it.
Mr.. Blu rLEK, Tin his seat) Inever said so. II is a
Wisconsin phrase altogether
Mr. WALKER. | will first notice the concluding re-
mark of the senator from Mississippi and say to him that
concur with him perfectly. and will join with Obadiah
in cursng, whenever shall present himself this
floor to take steps to dissolve this Union. believe he
will meet the curse of the traitor in the other world
But sir, come TO notice this decision; and will
say TO the honorable senator from South Carolina that
he is mistaken from beginning to end and will prove it.
Mr. BUTLER. read the beginning, so that cannot
be mistaken in that
Mr. WALKER. You are mistaken in your deductions
from beginning 10 end for the that TO read il cor.
rectly You should have read what followed that which
you did read He is mistaken in this: The treaty OF
which the decision speaks is not the treaty between
France and England, but the treaty between Virginia and
s
Carolina said that the case turned upon clause in the
treaty between France and England Now, sir turned
upon such clause Let what the case is read
rom the itself:
rhc facts ia this case are not controvered, that the
hrce negroes slaves in Virginia that ia 1874 they
that they remained there from that time until the
month Of july 1916 that the ordinance OF Congress passed
the month Of Jny In the 1857 and that the cons
uton OF the State OF Indiana adopted the i9h June
1916
Mr. F0oTE Will the senator give way for motion
o adjourn, and continue his remarks on Mondayl
MIR WALKER No, SIT; | shall be through 10 mo-
nent The will find that il is important that the
enator from South Carolina should be correct and i'm
end 10 correct him. II il Is intended, when authorities
brought here, that they shall be chopped up that
hey mean nothing when they go before the country,
AN stand here and chop M as long as anybody. will
not yield the floor.
"rhcse the material facts bnt the law arising out
u the ordnance treaty Of cssioa II pHgni1 the United
States OF that district country and the constitution,
r0rsrief To clear away the difficulties arising from ex
tancous matters, and 10 place the ounds Of this opinion
aIny before the court. short history OF the country will
e necessaIy. The country within the chartered lin
y VI Virginia but from the year until the peace OF
7b3, II subject t., and claimed by, Fanee BY the
i75s il was ceded 10 Gceat Britain il viii ap.
by reference 70 the proclamation General Gage, IN
I75. aud 10 the acts OF Col Wilkins, la grdntng lands
oyonor OF Illinois, that uner government distinct
ar evolutionary war, Il conquered b fas Of pr
but there has bsen EXHIBITED no evidence show
hat tf idws 81 PHgrntd eriend 10 that country
FER ITS conquest, that Geat Bnian, tcaty
7o3 by winch she obtained H. changed the laws then
x,siing ia the province. have carefully examined the
cts OF Virginia, aud lind prov,tion extending It's
avs TO that district OF couutry."
Now bear in mind, this is the conquered territory oil
Yrgna Had Virginia the right 10 take slaves into that
ernoryl What says the court
the laxta