The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-04-29

the patriots of all parties and of every section to put
1t down. But do complain, and have right to
complain, when these feelings brought within
this hall. complain when il leads to denial of
property in slaves We all know that when the cele
brated Pacheco claim came before the last Congress
committee OF this House, by majority OF five to
four, embodied in their report, one OF the
for its rejection, that slaves. under the provisions
of the Constitution, not regarded as property,
and ought not to be paid for by the Government as
SUCH" The report Of the committee, perhaps not
altogether upon this ground, was sustained by
ninety five votes in this House.
The provision in the Constitution requiring that
persons held to labor in one State. escaping into
another shall be delivered up upon the claim OF the
owner, has become practically dead letter. No
deny that upon this subject, there has been
a shameless violation of the Constitution.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. ASH.
NUM- in speech, the temper of which was alto
gcther commendable. admitted that the North had
not performed its constitutional duties this sub
ject, and expressed willingness to vote for some
tervention of jury trial, before the escaping slave
should be delivered up. venturcd to ask him if
he would apply the same mode Of trial in the
case Of fugitive from justice: He considered
that the cases were widely different; and while
he would apply the jury trial in the one, be
| would not IN the other, Now, after the most
mature consideration, have been unable to per-
ceivs the difference in principle between the
two cases. If a jury Is necessary to ascertain
whether or not person claimed is an escaping
slave, is it not equally necessary to ascertain
whether or not person charged is fugitive from
justice? The whole practice of the Government
from the commencement has been different, based
the idea that fair trial can be had in the juris
diction from which the escape was made. The
proposition to interpose jury trial is but yield
ing to the morbid sensibiity against slavery, which
would itself constitute the great obstacle to til,
faithful execution of the law. An eminent jurst OF
the gentleman's own State, Mr.. Justice Story, in
his Commentaries on the Constitution, placed both
clauses the same footing, and considered lit OBJ
pios that these provisions for the arrest and reno
val Of fugtives Of both classes contemplate summa
ry ministerial proceedings, and not the ordinary
course of judicial Investigations, to ascertain
whether the complaint be well founded, or the claim
of ownership be established beyond all legal con-
troversy" lconfess that look upon but another
evidence of the feeling of hstlity which the South
has to encounter in the assertion of its constitutional
rights upon this subject But look upon all these
things as of minor importance when compared with
the apparently determined and fixed purpose,
often avowed on this floor, to extend in form
other a congressional restriction of slavery
all our Territories. And what ask is the object
the end the aim of all this agitation, of all the petit
tions sent here Of this uniring struggle to fix upon
Territories the slavery restriction? Is il to get
clear of few hundred persons held in bondage
here TO strike from them the manacles of slavery,
that your table has groaned with petitions for it's
abolition in this district Is it really to prevent the
extension of slavery, that you insist upon congress
sonal restriction, when there is not in ten OF
you who does not believe that there are natural
causes which will forever exclude slavery from
| these secondary objects only. The great, and
Leading and paramount object s, TO force this Gov
ernment for all the States to assume attitude Of
hostility to the existence of slavery, compel it to
manifest its unmitigated enmity wherever, in the
exercise of it's supposed constitutional functions, it
can do 30, and thus TO prostitute its whole moral
| power against the tenure of fifteen hundred mil
lions of dollars of property belonging to its own Cit
| liens.
This Government. in its original organization,
conformed itself most wisely to the state of property
then existing. 1t could have been formed no
| other possible basis. / deny that a government
| the management Of the general business constitu-
| tionally appertaining TO 1t, can egitimately be
made the enemy Of the property Of any one section
| | have been taught TO believe that one great and
leading object of all government the protec-
tion Of the property of all its citizens. Yet have
| heard the argument gravely urged this floor
| that il is the duty Of the General Government to
adopt such line of policy TO compel the slave
holding States 70 emancipate their slaves. Sir, II
at the period of framing our Federal Constitution
these States had been told that, although they dele
gated no power TO the General Government over
this subject. yet in the Of its future action
its policy would be such 10 control their free will,
and TO compel them TO do what the General Gov
ernment itself could not do, ask If the Consttu-
/ ton would ever have been adopted
| Whether act having a tendency to prod uce,
passed with view TO produce, such n result, be
strictly and technically within the pale Of the Con-
stituton or not, il would be equally violation OF
|
was based There is, undoubtedly, diversity Of
opinion, no doubt honestly entertained on both
sides, to the power Of Congress 10 pass any law
| embodyng the slavery restriction. That there are
precedents for the exercise Of the power, IL would
be disingenuous 10 deny, and my habits Of life have
| led me 20 defer much 10 such authority These
precedents have been ably, and, TO my mind, satis
| iactoriy reviewed by others; and the, gentleman
from Georgia, (Mr. TooMBs,) particularly, has
shown what little weight they were entitled TO in
the settlement Of great constitutional question.
need only say that the celebrated ordinance Of 1857
was passed before the adoption Of our present Con-
stitution, and that the law afterwards enacted in
affirmsnce Of il was but the recognition Of ex.
isting compact. This isthe view taken of IL by the
Supreme Court Of the United States in the case OF
Polatd's Heirs Kibbe, IL Peters, All In speak
ing Of this ordinance, MIR. Justice Baldwin says:
"The sixth article Of the Constitution declares,
that all debts contracted, and all engagements
tered into, before the adoption Of this Constitution
shall be valid against the United States under
this Constitution under the Confederation. Thus
this ordinance, the most solemn Of all engage
ments, has bccome part Of the Constitution, and
s valid 10 protect and forever secure the rights OF
property and judicial proceedings TO the inhabt-
anita Of every Territory TO which il applies"
IL is, therefore, by virtue OF specific clause in
the ConsttutJn Of the United States that this ordi
nance is recognised and made valid, as existing
| engagement when the Constitution was sdopte,i,
and neither the ordinance ITSELF nor any Law re.
cognising IL, can be considered a precedent for
| the power now claimed.
|
prohibited north Of the line Of 36o 30 has its high-
sanction in the necessity which then existed Tor
the settlement of a Question which then convused
this nation. IL was cOnfessedly compromise based
upon the great principle Of equitable division OF
| common territory. The Oregon BILL containing a
like restriction, received the sanction Of the late
Executive Of the United States Mr.. Polk, upon the
| express ground that il north Of the Missouri
line. Now, although can never agree that IL 10
constitutional TO apply the restriction TO territory
lying north OF given line, and unconstitutional 10
apply IL south of such line, when the line itself 10
unknown TO the Constitution, | mention the reason
OF its approval in this case, show that, pre-
cedent, IL is entitled 10 weight whatever.
When, moreover, ! find the calm and philosophic
mind Of such Mr.. Madison, deliberately
coming 10 conclusion adverse TO the existence OF
such power, whatever may have been my opinion
arising from disposition 10 yield TO the authority
of mere precedent, have felt constrained TO look
into the Constitution for the power claimed and &C
draw my own conclusion upon the subject.
There are several grants from which the power
has been claimed, and perhaps the most common I.
that which gives the power ITO make all needfu
rules and regulations respecting the territory anc
other property belonging TO the United States
II