Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1850-05-30


own merits-that they cannot go alone, au
therefore thew must come cr0uching alon
under the wing of California The SPLEEN
did vessel, rugged and manned on the dis
taut shore, starts on her voyage; sh
doubles the cape; at length the signal an
nounces that she has reached the offing
The masses of people, reused and joyou
at the tldIngs, throng the beach to wit
ness her advent. The cry arises, why doe
she delay her coming? The only answe
that can be given is, that there is banter
ing process going on in the commercial dI
van. Zach one wishes TO profit by he
coming. She must tow in his packet, o.
his sooty whaler, or junk, or fishing smack
AT length 1t is gravely decided that she
must put out to sea again. or come dragging
on behind her all the old, crazy, crippled
water-logged crafts on all the Coast.
The second proposition of tins bill is tc
erect governments for Utah and New Mex
leo. object to it, because it excludes the
ordinance of 1857. Vermont was the first
to exclude slavery from her borders She
was first to take the position now held by
the free States in regard to slavery in the
territories. On November IL, 1919, she
passed this resolution
Is GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Nov II, 1919.
The General assembly of the State of
Vermont view with deep concern the at
tempt to Introduce slavery into the United
States, and 70 legalize 1t in States Ia be adj
milted into the Union. They regard 1t "a
measure manitesty tending TO increase
and perpeluate an evil of no ordinary mag
nitude and danger; of magnitude, as II de-
prIves portion of mankind of hose priv
reyes which republican principle guarantees
to all of danger, as 1t may, and that pos
slbly at no distant period, subject the mus
ter to the vengeance of the slave; and, as
1t Will retain the physical force o the slave
holding States for self preservation, when 1t
may be most needed for national effort or
defence They regard it as tending to IN
crease the number of slaves as the extend
ing their territories, and Increasing their
demand and value, will encourage the vlo-
lation of all laws made to prohi5l their I'M
portallon; and as tending to rerpetuate
slavery. by adding to the influence aud pow
er of States to be formed within our terri
tories, which eventually may constitute d
majority of the Union.
They do not perceive that the plea of ne
cessltv, on which the existence OF slavery
can alone be paliated will extend to the
territories of the United States They can
not doubt that the powers of Congress are
adequate to the effective prohIbItiun of the
further introduction of slavery, that they
have the supreme power of legislation over
the territories for all purposes Of national
concern, and that they are not bound to
assent to the admission Of any Sts;e into thu
Union, unless upon such conditions as shall
be consistent with the general welfare.
The General Assembly do therefore re-
solve, that our senators be instructed, and
our Representatives in Congress be requcs
ted, 10 use their influence to prohibit the
introduction Of slavery into tie territories
of the United States, and to prevent Its be-
lng lcgalized IN any State hereafter to be
admitted INTO the Union
She put her reasons on the record, that
slavery Is wrong IN lt>elf-thlt 1t tends To
weaken the national strengttI-that 1t can
not be tolerated on the plea Of necessity
and that Congress has the constitutional
power to prohibit 1t. These are her sentl-
mcnts now. The doctrine that controverts
them Is modern doctrine, affirming that
men may 20 to any territory OF the United
States, carving with them all that Is held
Is property IN their several States. There
is a remarkable uniformity III the uttetance
OF that doctrine. Look through the long
debates III both houses OF Congress, ana
you see it always IN the same stereotyped
form. We should suppose that is mere
matter of taste, for the sake of novelty, 1t
would sometimes be varied but 1t stll
holds the same immutablc formula The
reason is plain-change the expression and
You Kill the doctrine. Say that YOU have
right to carry your local laws into the ter
rItories, and you make an equivalent eX-
preston that every lawyer will drop like
hot ron. 1t IS not true as to any State,
north or south. There are fifty men IN
Vermont who own bank, with capital of
an hundred thousand dollars They hold
and manage their property by local laws
OF the State They now propose to take
that bank and migrate to California, where
the law prohibits banking, os to a territory
where there are no laws on the subject.
They propose to hold and manage their
property i'll their new residence just as they
have done in their old residence There
is Tot country justice in all the land so
green that he would not laugh in their
faces.
Why was there a constitutional and legal
provision for the recapture oftugtlye slavesl
If they are property under the general law
of the land, those provisions are needless.
Their adoption ard the present demand for
their execution, is Il confession that slaves
are held as property by local laws, and can
not be carried beyond the jurisdiction of
that law. a slave escapes aud makes his
way to Canada; in your stables Is a horse
that has been fed and groomed by that ne
gro; he snaps his tether and follows over
the same road to the same place. You can
20 and take the one, but must leave the
other Why is this so. Because the one
is, and the other is not, held as property by
the common law of the world. Take d
slave and cross Mason and Dixon's line
he moment you have passed that bounda-
ry. he ceases to be property. You are still
III the Union, and under the shield of the
Constitution. Why can you not still hold
your property? Because the power Of your