The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-10-10

tories mas the power OF running TINS supulatiOn
according to the spirit Of it without any specific
constitutional provision to confer that power,
since they have jurisdiction over the Territories
for all municipal purposes whatever
Mr.. CHASE replied If assertion were argu'
ment, and denunciation proof then, Mr.. Presi-
dent, the positions have taken might be affected
in some degree by what has fallen from the Sem
ator from South Carolina. IL is quite easy to use
epthets but epithets prove nothing. 1t is very
easy to say that proposition is " extravagant"
aud perverse J" but, after a gentlemen has graf
flied his taste by such application of terms, the
proposition remains just ii was before. L
should prefer to hear some argument in contra
vention of the position maintain. am, trust,
as op to conviction as any gentleman upon this
hoor-as little willing and little likely to adj
vance propositions which can justly be denomnat-
ed "perversen or "extravagantD as any other
gentleman.
What have | said That the common law
prevails in this country as the rule Of decision
for the Federal courts and the State courts gem
orally except so far as it is controlled and mod-
fed by the Constitution of the United States.
Does anybody deny that? II not, what have been
the results of the application of the principle
By the courts Of Louisiana, il has been held that
a slave taken to France, and having set his foot
upon that soil though but for a moment, was no
longer a slave and, although he might be brought
back to Louisiana, his freedom would remain.
Such, also were the earlier decisions in MNssAs-
sippi 1t may be, however, that the course of adj
-. - Or '. s,'vSst h~a gyd91roDe some.
modification there. =
! Now. what was the ground Of those decisions
Ii was as | said before, that common-law princi-
| pie or rather that principle of universal law,
| which afiirms that slavery is Locals dependent
upon the municipal law for its existence and con-
tinuance. Slavery is an institution of force, and
not Of right as our law books telch-the private
force of the master being made efficient and suih-
cient by the public force of the State. When,
therefore, person held as n slave passes beyond
the jurisdiction within which public force can be
| invoked in aid of the private force which would
subject him to slavery, he is no longer a slave
| He is man and he is where the power which
| made him a slave cannot follow him. He is free,
therefore That is all there is Of it and that, it
seems to me. is sound logic. 1t is legitimate de-
duction from unquestionable premises. lfgentle-
men can show that the premises are unsound, or
the conclusion erroneous let them do so.
Now sir a few words in answer to the Senator
from Connecticut He thinks we may legisate
for the extraditon of slaves escaped into the Ter
ritories although the clause Of the Constitution,
under which we act does not extend to the Ter
ritories at all Now, ask the Senator where he
finds constitutional nowAx,to enforce the surrNsrs
der of slaves escaped into the Territories What
clause of the Constitution confers it Will the
~Scaa.sr say that slaves passing or taken from one
of the States into the Territories remain slaves2
If he says that understand him. TIL Il is the
modern Southern doctrine. Does he say that
these persons if fugitives from service, may be
delivered up under the general power of Congress
over the Territories? That, also, is position
which understand. The point of difference be-
tween us would then be this: ! maintain that
Congress has no power to authorize or sanction
slavery in the Territories, and that, inasmuch
all Territorial legislative power is derived from
Congress there can be, therefore, no Territorial
slavery while the Senator insists that a quail.
fed right of the master to the slave the right Of
reclamation, may be created by Congress in the
Territories.
The Senator denies, however, that the condi.
ton of the person, thus liable to be surrendered,
is slavery lie denies that the Constitution con.
tinues the condition Of slavery in the case of a
slave escaping from one State into another He
insists that the fugitive is not property in the
non slaveholding State In that as q legal prop
ostion, agree with him; but this will furnish no
warrant for the legislation contemplated by the
section which propose to strike out. The opin-
ion which the Senator and mysef entertain has
not yet received the sanction of the courts Our
opinion IL not the law quite otherwise The
Supreme Court, in the Of Pennsylvania Us.
Prgg, decided that rs between States, the cOndi
ton of the fugitive slave remains in all respects
the same in the State into which he escapes rs it
was in the State from which he fled. This is the
language of the court:
"The clause contains a positive and unquali-
fed recognition of the right of the owner N the
SlaUe-- puts the right to the service or
labor on the same ground and to the same extent
in every other State as in the State from which
the slave escaped and in which he was held to
l.ln ~ 10 ha all he, H.aIs Of
the right attach also. The owner must, there
FORE have the right to seize and repossess the
slave, which the local laws of his own State con-
fer upon him, as property"
Now we are or should be practical men We
should legislate upon facts and laws as we find
them. The power under which the Senate must
act in passing bill for the surrender of fugitves
from service is nowhere expressly granted by the
Constitution, but is claimed by implication from
this clause of compact and the claim is sanctioned
by decision Of the Supreme Court. We must
take this whole decision together, if we desire to
ascertain the consequences Of the legislation which
it asserts to be within the competency of Con-
gress This decision asserts that Congress, in
providing for the surrender of slave escaped
must regard him property. II, then, Congress
shall exercise this same power in regard to slaves
escaped into Territories-8 case not provided for
in the Constitutional must recognise, or rather
authorize, the continuance in the Territories Of
the property relation between the master and the
escaped slave. In the absence Of legislation by
Congress, slave escaped into the Territories is
free. There is no slavery there for any man,
whencesoever or howsoever he may come. Con-
gress intervenes and there is slavery there-sla-
very unlimited in duration, unrestricted in ex-
tent with all the Incidents which attach to the
condition a property relation in the State from
which the slaves come Now, this slavery gets
into the Territories by the legislation Of Con-
gress. Ii not, will the Senator explain how 1t
gets therel
Why sir, the very woman whose seizure and
abduction gave rise to the case of Prigg rs. Penn
sylvania, had children by a free husband, who
never escaped from Maryland, but were born in
Pennsy lvania. Aud yet, as the mother was an
escaping slave and all the incidents" Of slavery
attached to her, her children were carried off
with her and sold to the slave-deader ! do not
say that this was lawful or constitutonal-far
from it but it sanctioned by the decision OF
| the Supreme Court That decision, though in
my judgment wholly unwarraned by the Consti-
tuition, yet stands for law and We must legisate
as practical men, well knowing that until re-
versed, it will stand for law.
| If, then, Congress, by its legislation creates
the right of reclamation in class of cases in
| which it is not given by the CONSTITUTIONAL it
| continues the masters power over and his prop
| erty in slaves escaped into Territories, as that
power and property are held by the Supreme
Court to he continued by the Constitution in and
over slaves escaped into the States, does not Con-
gress introduce slavery into the Territories IL
seems to me that there can be but one answer to
this question would hope therefore that the
Senator from Connecticut might reconsider his
opinion.
Mr., OhyroN Of New Jersy, admitted that I" the
clause in the Constitution speaks only of States ;"
but he thought that the case Of the Territories,
if not within the letter, within the spirit of
| the Constitution y and that Congress should pro-
vide for the sniznra nnl ex traliIi of fuuiiiyes