Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1850-02-14
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY a, 1850.

forfeiture Of all vessels bnllt and equipped
for the purpose, and all persons employed
in the business on board those ships were
made liable TO penalty of So, 600, and I'M
prsonment for two years. In March, 1867,
an act was passed prohibiting the introduce
ton of slaves into the country after the first
of January, 1868 The law also provided
that all vessels built and equipped for that
purpose should be forfeited, and the penalty
on the persons engaged in fitting out such
vessels was fixed at fine of SEA, $3.50. The
penalty for the importation Of slaves in-
to the country was Imprisonment for not
more than ten nor less than five years, and
fine of not more than $4,000 nor less
than ,00o The act Of 1913 was sim
liar one. In May, 1920, the traffic was pre-
nounced piracy, and punished with death.
Now, sir, is this traffic, which you denoni-
mate piracy and punish with death, to be
denomnaied crime or not The express
sion IN this resolution assumes that it is a
crime. If II is no crime, why pronounce il
piracy and punish it with death? Sir, |
am aware that these penalties are directed
against the slave trade, and that it is the
the object ofthese stringent aud severe pro-
nbiions bat is not the institution itself a
Perpeiuajion OF the offence against humani-
ty 1t originated at the outset il what YOU
deem piracy. and, however long it may con-
tinue, 1t pariakes still of the character OF
lis origin. 1t is of the blood Of It's own
lineage.
Sir, ihe present generation may not be
responsible for lis orgln-ii EIay be an evil
which they cannot remedy. But, sir do
these considerations render the Institution
less oppressive, or more consistent with the
dictates of humanity!
This Is not all, Mr. President In cur
treaty with Great Britain, ratified in 1872,
we stipulated to employ force OF tie cons;
Of Africa fer the suppression OF this slave
trade, aud further, the parties to that treaty
engaged to exert iheir influence with ma
tons still permitting the traffic, to PUT an
end 10 il, by closing their markets. 1t was
thought To be the best mode Of disccuraE-
lag this disgusting iFafii; t. close the mar
heis. What do my constituency now pro-
pose They propose not to open new IA r.
Aets III territories where the institution does
not now exist for the iuturc encouragement;
OF traffic winch tie almost entire civilized
world has combined 10 suppress.
SIR, are not the cases parallel Il we
are justified in putting an end to tins traffic !;
If We are justified N endeayoring to close
the market IN other countries, how can We
be justified IN opening these Immense terri
tories, that have been conquered by our val
or, as new market for lie introduction of
this species of property!
Mr. President, tie second resolution has.
II possible, been more mIsconceived than
, the tirSt 1t has been asserted here, and it
ond resolution claims right in Congress
to interfere with the Institutions of the va
rious States. Sir, the resolution claims no
such right Ii Will bear no such consruc-
ton. Ii Is bat Il substitute of one EXPIRES
sion for another, by which such consiruc-
ton can he fixed upon. What is the Ian
guage Of tie resolution
That the so-called compromises of the
Constitution restrained the Federal Gov
eminent from interference with slavery OIL
ly in the States in which it then existed
and from interference with the slave trade
Only for limited time, which has long since
expired"
Now, it is to be remarked that the word
restrained is used in the present tense II
is used III reference 10 the effect and opera
ton Of the Constitution at the time it was
adopted. Well SIR, is not the assertion
True! If the compromises of the con>titu-
ton, which restricted Congress IN relation
,l.
to other territories than the States where it
then existed, | desire 10 be informed where
the territory is; for at this time we had Dot
one territory, that of the northwest. The
question was settled by the cid Congress,
existing under the confederation, by com
pact which has been regarded from that day
TO the present as binding upon all. We had
no other territory. Where, then, could this
restriction take effect unless it were in the
States where tie institution existed!
1t has been said that this resolution as
serts the power in Congress to interfere
with slavery in the new States-in the
States that have been adopted since the a.
doptlon of the constitution. Sir, repeat,
ii asserts no such power. What are those
states! First, Kentucky and Tennessee
Sir, we all know that those States were
portion, one of Virginia aud the other of
North Carolina. If the restriction opera
ted III Virginia as she stood at the time cf
the adoption of the constitution, and upon
North Carolina, it covered those territories.
SO far, then, as new states have been form
ed out of the limits of the old states, the re-
slriction will apply to the new, thus formed
out of the limits of the cid
But there is another aspect in which this
matter is to be viewed Those who draughted
the resolution knew well that, although the
proposition in its terms is unqueS,ionably
true, that the constitution only restricted
Congress as respects those States Where the
institution existed, yet the subject was open
TO be acted upon by Congress IN relation to
the territories. Oar first territory was Lou
isiana; cur second Florida Now, | main
tain that, while these territories remained
territories, it was competent for Congre~~ TO
regulate the subject of slavery within them.
However that may be, when those terrific
res became states, the power of regulating
the subject passed from Congress. They
had no longer any control over it. And
At IL. ,,t-nIucod tho