The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-02-15


bat ransen.y passing through that State in the exercise
Of bis right an American ctzenhat such slave in
santy emancipated from the bonds OF slavery in which
he il held in the State in which his owner dwens Now.
offered desire that that should be decided by The
supreme tribunal in the United States agree that Mas
sachusetis has right, as sovereign State prohibit
from coming and settling there with slaves but thai she
has right to seize slaves OF persons OF the United States
passing tansienty through her limits is right which
cannot be admitted until is affirmed by higher tribunal
than that by which II has been decided
Mr President. the true proposition. apprehend, is
TINS Slavery exists in the State in which the owner
dwells-it exists out OF the State in which the owner
dwellsonce existing. exists everywhere until il comes
within the limits OF a sovereignty which inhibils il
will not trouble The Senate with reference to authorities
but the proposition is well laid down by the supreme
court Of Louisiana that present to you the following
extract from II!
"Savery, Notwithstanding all that may have beea said
tasy the laws OF human nature we find Ia history
have existed from the earliest ages Of the world down to the
before the court il is deemed unnecessary inquire into
the different means by which part Of the human
captivity being the offspring Of those already enslayed &c.,
Sc However, we oopinion that may be laid down
already rsdaesd hat state may bkrd a. and also
ted and tolerated in all the colonies established in America
ey European powers most clearly as relates to blacks aad
After stating that this accounts for the absence OF any
legislative act OF European powers for the introduction
OF slavery into their American domnions, the court
adds:
"f the record Of any such exists we have not been
| able to find any trace Of H."
Now sir applying this doctrine to the question under
consideration persons ght to the United States from
the coast Of Africa, who, according to the laws existing
therefor there are laws and classes or castles even in
that barbarcss coany.were N state o. slavery there
court OF Louisiana, slaves here that is. the relation
listing between master and slave created upon the coast Of
Africa continues until the latter comes within Terri
tory whose municipal laws prohibtt
And here want the attention Of the Senate for mo.
to that clause Of the constitution which relates to
pont We now Yosa
sir that that question Isl whether the property of
er in his slave exist beyond the limits OF the State in
4 which the owner dwels. and under the authority OF
whose laws be is supposed to hold it. The clause
ered to has an important bearing upon the question 1t
/ is in these words:
mo person held service labor In State, under
the laws thereof escaping into another shall
quence OF law regulation therein, be discharged
from such service or labor but shall be delivered up on
claim OF The party TO whom such service or labor may De
DUE
Such person s'shal not be discharged" though he is
beyond the limits of that State under the authority OF
whose laws he is supposed, and under that authority
Alone to be held in slavery Although he is without the
reach Of that authority BY which, and by which alone he
service and labor TO his owner yet still under this
provision of the constitution OF the United Staies he
shall not consequence OF any law regulation oil any
other State, be discharged from such service labor
Why, cir. if tie proposition were irne against which am
contendng, that the slave, whether by his own will or
by the acl Of his MASTER the moment be goes beyond
the limits Of the State whose laws authorize him to
held IN slavery rs 81 ri be
ton must have been expressed in very different
terms. II would have been necessary for the con-
provided that the fugitive should moi be discharged from
has erviee and labor in consequence Of law OF the State
into which he had escaped he cond haze been airsody
discharged not that he should be delivered up claim
OF the person TO chom such service labor due for
they could not have recognised The principle that was
Jae due, the mere fact OF his having passed the
boundary OF the State in which he was held in slavery
would have released hun from that debt The conven-
ton did not consider the matter They held that the
slave ne did ge beyond the limits 81 the
whose laws he was held in bondage was still slave
and they have provided not that he should bs restored
to service and labor from which Ne had been discharged
or released but that he should not be discharged
leased from actually subssing debt OF service and
labor. in consequence OF any laws or regulations OF the
State into which he had escaped but should be delivered
up on the claim of that party TO whom such service
labor may be due-thus recognising actually subssting
present debt OF service and labor beyond the limits OF the
And still further: although the slave escaped into
sovereignty nhibng slavery, and beyond the State in
which his master dwe yet the constitution recognises
to that property derived solely under the laws OF State
beyond whose limits the slave had passed. Now il the
constitution Of the United States recognises the title OF
the owner not merely within the limits Of his State
has been the argument addressed to here but with
in the limits OF sovereign States which nhib slavery
il have the right ogo within the State which
so inhbits and claim my property which hold under
the laws OF my State, have question to propose,
which ask may be answered, not in the strife OF debate
nor with the feelings excited in contest for victory in
discussion OF this sortnor yet TO TO the Senate
but ask every senator Il TO himself in the quiet
retirement fhs closet communing with God and his
own conscience-f the constitution Of the counfryreeog
nises mn fits 10 TIE saus tctin my State, beyond my
STATE and tr1tin sovereign STATE that iahfbbs SLAVERY,
does il forbid, does il deny that title wlhtn territory that
is the common properly Of The Uaed Siaesf II Mexican
laws extinguish itihere that is another question which
will consider presently.
Connected with this subject OF the recovery OF fugi
live slaves, there Is consideration which In due time
will probably attract the attention OF the Congress and
the government OF the United States Looking 10 the OBJ
legation which the United States have assumed their
stuiona engagement TO that fugitive slaves shall be
restored TO their owners. and the decision OF the Su
peme Court OF the United States that this provision takes
the subject from the jurisdiction Of the several States,
thus making exclusively an obligation on the part oil
the government OF the United States, one which they
alone are bound 10 fulfil BECAUSE according 10 that de-
cson they alone have the power to fulfil H. II will be-
come question, in all probability before great lapse Of
time, how far the Congress OF the United States or
not Obliged, il they do not provide ample means Tor the
recovery OF fugitive slaves, 10 redeem the pledge which
given in that clause by making compensation for the
slaves who prevented from being restored by
Of mobs and other unwaantabe devices which obstuct
their recovery in the free States.
Turn to the considerations the existence and oblga-
ton OF Mexican laws in The Territories OF California and
New Mexico. That is the second point II is said that
even II we had right to carry our slaves beyond the
limits OF the States and these rights attendant upon
49,