Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1850-02-28
CONCLUDED.

CONCLUDED
Well, SIR, what does the resolution pro-
pose lae resolution neither afirms nor
disafhrms the constitutiouality OF the exer-
else of the power of abolition VA the Dis
trict. Il is silent upon the subject 1t says
that 1t is ineXpedient 10 do it, but upon GER
tain condlu"ns. And what are those con-
dlions! Why, first, that the State of Ma
ryland shall release the United States from
the obligation of that implied faith which,
| contend, is connected with the act of ces-
SION by Mary land to the United States.-
Well, sir. If Maryland, the only State now
that ceded any portion of the territory
whicA rem ans to us will cnnsent-In 9TH
er words, If she releases Congress from the
obi CATION growing out of the cesslon with
rel1rd to SLAYER, CONSIDER, sir. that that
wuulI rem.ve one of the obstacles To the
exercise of the power, If II were deemed
expedient Ia exercise 1t; but 1t Is only re-
moving one OF them. There are twp other
Conditions which are inserted IN TINS RESI-
luton 1 first Is the consent of the peo-
pie 1T the District.
Mr.. President, the condition Of tie peo-
uon IN violation of the great principle
which lies at the bottom ol our own free
institutions, and Of all free institutions. be-
cause 1t is the case of a people who are
acted upon by legislative authority. and tax
ed by legislative authority, without having
any voice In the administration of affairs.
The government of the United States, in
respect to the people OF this District Is a
tyrrany, an absolute goveFnmenl-not exer-
cised hitherto, admit, and hope it wall
never be so exercised tyranncallv or ar
bltrarily. But It Is in, the nature of all rbi-
trary power for if | were To give a deiini-
ton OF arbitrary authority, would say 1t Is
that power which Is exercised by an author
ily over people who have no voice nor IN
fuence ia the assembly which enacts her
laws and that IS the precise condition of
the people to whom have referred
Well, sir, that being their condition, and
this question Of the abolition of slavery az
fectng them in all the relations of life
which we can Inagine-of property, socie-
", cominrt, peace-l think we should re-
qalre, as another OF the conditions upon
which alone this power should be exercised,
the consent OF the people of the District of
Columbia And, >lr, have net stopped
there. This resolution requires still a third
condition; and that is, that slavery shii
not be abolished within the District of Co.
lunbia, although Maryland consents, and
although the people of the District itself.
without the third cond tion--that of max
ing compensation to the owners of slaves
4
terlal To me upon what tSIs this ohli Iation
to compensate the Shareholders M the Dis
trict, for such slaves as may be liberated un-
der the authority of Congress, Is placed
There Is a clause in an amendmeut of the
constitution OF the United States, which
provides that 30 property-no private prop
erty shall be taken for public use, without
lust compensation to the owners of such
propert, " ell sir, think that IN a Inst
aud liberal Interpretation of that clause, we
are restrained from taking the property of
the people OF the District OF Columbia in
slaves, IN consideration OF any public poll
CIV, without full and complete Compensation
But If there be no constitutional restriction
such as Is contained IN the amendment
have referred to, upon principles of eternal
Justice II Is wrong TO deprive thnse who
have property IA slaves III this District of
that property without compensation.
Why, sir, no one of the European pow
ers-Great Britain, Fence, nor any OF the
powers which have undertaken to ab ,lish
slavery in their colunies-haye ever veutur-
ed to do 1t without making compel alton t.
the owners. They we're under no such
constitutional Obligation as | have referred
to: but they were under that Oblgsilpn L.
which all men ought 10 bow-lhat oaliga-
ton of eternal justice, which declares that
no man ought 10 be deprived oi his proper
" without full aud Just compensation Tor
It's value Whether under the constitution
al provision or not, the case is the same. |
know, sir, that it has been argued tnat this
clause of the constitution which requires
compensation TO be made for property when
taken by the government for the public use,
would not apply to the case OF the abolition
of sla.ery, because the property Is not Ia
ken by the government for the public use.
Why, sir, perhaps literally it would not be
taken for the use ofthe pubic, but 1t would
be TAX en- in consideration of policy aud a
purpose adopted by the government Tor the
good of the public, or one which 1t was
deemed expedIenl 10 carry into full effect
and operation. BY liberal Interpretation
of the clause, it seems to me, however, that
slave property would be so far regarded
that 1t ought TO be SO far regarded-as ta-
ken for the use OF the public, or at the III
stance OF the public, as to eutltle the own
ers of the slaves So taken to a compensa-
ton. under and by virtue Of the clause it.
self. to the full extent of the value OF the
slave liberated. 1t appears to me that this
is an effectua and constitutional restriction
upon the power of Congress over the sub
lect of slavery within TINS District. If tins
be not SO, then the power Is unrestricted
/ mean unrestricted by any constitutional
injunction or inhibition But the restrlc-
ton imposed by the obligation ofJustice re-
maIns; aud | contend that that would be
sufficient to render 1t oppressive and tyran-
meal 10 use The power, without, at the same
time, making compensation. l put IT to
gentlemen whether tina; would not be a bet
ter condition for the Shareholders oftne Dis
trIct than TO assume the rigid application of
the amendment of the consfltution ~, ,yh,c,