The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-03-29

Slaughter. He said, what almost every one must &C
knowledge to be true, that the power to regulate was no
power to destroy No, sir in this, too the abohtlon
lists TO their leading purpose Tar as h
action OF this government is concerned-l mean thei
desire to commit it to denial OF the right OF property
slaves.
But il may be said that these persons, whose efforts are
so dangerous our peace and property, constitute
but small proportion OF the people Of the free States
But, Mr.. President when we look to the effects they
have had upon the legislation IN the free States, anc
even here, we cannot suppose that they contemp
Bile in point OF numbers, to be despsed in regard tc
ability. The senator from Massachusetts has said that
the money already expended by them upon anti slavery
agitation in what would call war upon the slave
States, would probably have purchased and liberated
every slave in Maryland. But, sir, can Congress say
that its skirts are clear in relation 10 this war upon the
property and peace OF nearly hall the States this Union
When these petitions began 10 pour in upon the House
Of Representatives, the southern members saw the ef
fects which this agitation must have upon their best IN
teress and felt that the terms in which these petitions
were often couched and the debates which grew out o
them, calculated TO disturb the harmony OF mem
bers and obsruct public business They therefore felt
that they had right to ask the common government
not to lend the weight OF its moral influence 70 an
agitation dangerous by receiving these petitions.
They asked that the House would express its dsappro
baton OF these assaults upon them in the most emphatic
manner by refusing receive these petitions In other
words they invoked the moral influence OF this govern
for the protection OF their property and peace, and
protested against its to dangerous assaults upon
both For awhile this was done but the House OF Rep
did not long resist Its doors are now
thrown open wide to the reception Of all sorts OF anti.
slavery petitions, and has become the very centre OF
agitation upon this allabsobing and allexcitng ques-
ton know it has been urged, as an excuse for this,
that the right OF petition being given by the constitution,
ment upon Congress- to receive them II this be so,
why refuse to receive petitions for dissolution OF
the Union We have seen members here refuse
to those se'a q AZ nu Character "a And yet
The former. most commonly the product Of eccentric
3r disordered imagination. is far less dangerous 70
he Union than these abolition petitions which have
kindled much strife But, sir, to the point upon
which was dwelling Does not this admission that
Congress can reject petition, when coupled with
ne TACT tha i receives these aoo.oa penons, eaS %
hey cause, and the warfare OF which they Instruments
But what has been the action Of Congress itself upon
'ome OF the subjects OF these petitions was al me
Ohio, which, according TO his own admission, proposed
take the vote Of slaves along with others upon ques
ion relating to their own freedom; and. upon motion
being made to that effect there seveny-nine votes
against laying this bill upon the table OF course these
eventynine from the free States, and constituted
think, majority OF all the members from those States.
AT the same session a Mr. Got proposed resolution,
;ouched in offensive TERMS and directing committee
report bill prohibiting the slave trade IN the District
If Columbia. This resolution passed the House; but
whole subject postponed But the question of property
slaves up directly at the cession in the
Of Pachecos slave for whom he sought compensa-
saon, upon the ground that it was private property
subject was referred divided as Eve FOUR the minority
reporting against the claim and concluding their re-
port with FIVE propositions OF which the third "hat
slaves under the provisions of the federal constitution,
not regarded as property and ought not TO be paid Tor
by the government as such" was upon this PROPOSE,
lion mainly that the debated in the House, and
upon the first vote the bill for the relief OF Pacheco
defeated II subsequently reconsdered and the bill
passed by vote Of 10l TO 95, the ninety members,
,f course being from the Tree States have heard that
some of these votes given against the claim upon
considerations connected with the right OF property IN
slaves but whoever will read the report and examine
he debate must come TO the conclusion, as seems 10
me- that the decision mainly turned upon that question.
L is fact to be considered, Nr President, that large
majority of the members from the free States voted
against such bill this when such an issue had been
raised.
But this is not the only government through which war
bas been waged against the rights OF property OF the
States We find the aboltioniss, with the
busy Efforts and persevering purpose waging war
through the legislatures OF the antslave States upon the
constitutional rights Of the South in relation TO the re-
capture OF fugitive slaves Here too, we lind their ac-
ion based upon the same principle that neither law nor
give right OF property in man. Git.
zens of free States who kidnapped slaves IN southern
Sates and thus committed felony according TO their
avs, when demanded fugitives OF justice IRON the
States which they fed refused to be delivered up
In the case of this sort occurring between Virginia
and New York, the governor OF New York placed his
refusal upon the ground that the slave was not the sub
ect .of property, the offence felony IN the State
Of New York and yet to deny that the offender
4 fugitive from Justice in Virginia, was IN effect 10
leny the right OF that State 10 say what law within
her own bounds, and 10 refuse her the enjoyment
Of one OF the painest and most palpabe rights Sc
cured 10 her in the constitution But here, too, he
probably acted under obligations which he conceived
10 be above and beyond both the law and the consu-
on Nor were our rights in relation TO the recapture
Of fugitive slaves much more respected. Under the
profession OF desire their own citizens from
being kidnapped, laws passed which made II not
only nearly impossible to recapure slave IN the Tree
States, but rendered IL highly dangerous to attempt TO re-
claim him under the provisions OF the act OF Congress
for however inended these laws were so framed as 10
make II nearly dangerous TO reclaim fugitive slave
"a to kidnap citizen IN the State OF New York. But
the absolute denial o justice occasoned by laws OF this
character at last became apparent that case was made
for the decision OF the Supreme Courtl mean Priggs
case which arose out OF the laws OF Pennsylvania
And what was the entertainment we received there
the clear and conclusive opinions oi
Chief Justice 1aney and Judge Daniel, who dssened
rom the majority, decided that the power OF pro-
viding remedy for this constitutional right was excu
,ively vested in Congress, and all State legislation 10 re-
alton to il was void Such, al least Is the general inter-
some OF the States have acted, in making Il the basis OF
new line OF operations against this right o the Soutn
The old laws on the subject have been repealed
but others have been enacted making II penal ~
State officers 10 aid in recapturng slave and
refusing the of their ails for the purpose oil con.
ning such fugves. To prevent the execution OF TINS
provision OF the constitutions according to its spirit and IN
tent probably the real object OF such legsaton although
there is no violation OF the letter OF the contract mat
rights have been violated this respect has been
by northern gentlemen this hoor and
in spirit oil candor which authorizes the
hope that they will endeavor to do something eectna to
secure against such wrongs in future. But can any
State government and their active assistance carry out
in good faith these provisions OF the constitution And