The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-09-12

lion, and without regard 10 the limits prescribed by the
constitution
object then. sir, TO this provision OF this bill be.
cause involves The assertion OF The power OF
non changing the status or condition OF the slaye and
converting him into Tree man, which is not vested BY
the constitution IN the Congress oil the United States
Sr, thsis an unfortunate me perhaps, 10 enter into
discussion OF this question, and perhaps It is an unor-
tuaate time to leglslae upon this subject The public
mind ~ agiated by the recent discussions in this
and the other House, and fear that this will be
sdeed a. an extraordinary attempt at the direct as
sertlon OF that power 10 abolish slavery IN the Dis
trict OF Columbia, which although the opinion is
fdeny entertained by many that does exist senators
who hear that the exercise OF such
power would be received with fepugnance the conse.
quences of which we may not be able to foresee
member some time since, an discussion in this chamber
hearing the bold assertion OF gentleman who then
member OF the Senate. that the power of Congress to
abolish slavery in this District might be traced 10 two
sources st that they had tie taxing power in the Dis
tax to an amount which would be equivalent 10 the
emancipation OF the slave, and decaratve, as conse-
quence Of its non-pay OF the freedom OF the slave
and the second place. that it might be by
taking possession OF this slave and emancipating him
upon making compensation for the value OF that slave
am not aware, SIR, although these propositions were
uttered by very respectable member OF this body that
they have hitherto foundcountenance but think, as the
representative IN part OF one OF the slave States OF this
Unon that 1t my duty to resist any provision IN any
act OF Congress for the manumlsson OF slaves IN the
District OF Columbia, or for any regulation OF the subject
OF Congress to abolish slavery the District OF Colum
bia shall. therefore. vote in favor Of the amendment
which j pTopesed By the senator from MARYLAND
suggested with regard TO the efficiency OF this provision
there is another which has occurred TO that did
not think Of at the moment As the laws OF the Dis
tct stand by act passed some years ago.
be held TO bail here in any civil action whatever
The passing Of this act, therefore. imposing penalty OF
$780, will only amount to this: II comes here in
violation OF law, bringing slave with him for the pur
pose Of traffic, you have right to go to him and say
Sir III thank you TO come 70 the next circuit court to
be held in this District and allow Judgment pass my
favor for $500" From the very nature Of the the
man does not belong 10 the District. He lives some
where else You have no means OF enforcing him, by
sureties the confinement of his person. to appear and
the consequence is, as il to me, that the whole
provision would be Intellectual did not think of this
state Of the law before was thinking Of the law as i
original provision of the bill, although liable OBJ
jeclons, preferable, upon the whole to the plan pro-
posed BY the amendment There Is difficulty in making
Il eecua, connected with the subject in every way
very great difficulty The right provision, in nay appe-
henson beyon doubt, is, that the slave brought here
should be forfeited and sold slave on the public
count; but the difficulty is, all know, that in the
existing state OF things such provision that could
not be introduced, and would be considered extremely
offensive bya large proportion of the people of the Dis
Mr.. PEARcE. The honorable senator from North
Carolina very easily obvate tie difficulty by adding
provision to the bill that bail shall be required in every
such any law to the contrary notss outstanding. II
the senator will make such suggestion. will accept it,
MT BADGER was understood TO approve OF such
modification
Mr.. PEARCE then modified his amendment, as fol-
lows: 4
.And in every such case bail shall be required any Ia
TO the contrary Notwithstanding +"
MIR BALDWIN. do not rise for the purpose OF en-
teriig luto discussion OF the question whether Con-
eress bias the power to abolish slavery the District OF
Columbia, although entertain no doubt whatever that
tba, Iuwer conferred to the extent that il exists
in any State government in regard 10 the population
Thin the limits OF the Stale but rse simply Tor the
urpose OF referring the Senate TO decision OF the Su
rene Court, obyiaing think, the difficulties suggested
Dy the senator from Georgia, lMr BERRIEN By the
a a [ Al he me n he
this part OF the District 10 the United States, il was
unlawful TO bring into the State of Mar, land except
State and if slave brought into that State viola
ton OF the law he was declared 10 be entitled to bis
freedom That law OF the State OF Maryland al
the time OF the cesslon That law adopted with the
other laws OF Maryland, and declared by the oil Con
gress TO be and reIIan in force in this District 1t is
now the law, and II has been decided by the Supreme
Coar the United States 10 be valid operative law
in this District; and il 50. ask from wi al authority
does derive its validity Surely BY that authority
contained 10 the act which declares that the laws OF
the Stale OF Maryland shall continue remain in force
In the OF Lee Us. Lee, which a petition Tor
freedom by slaves brought into this District from the
State Of Maryland, the circumstances these Tue
removed into the Maryland part OF the District
from the State OF Virginia. leaving his slave behind him in
Virginia. Alter having been for some time resident in
this OF the District he caused his slaves to be intro
dueed into the county Of Alexandria, which was lawful
by the laws OF Virginia then in force in that part OF the
District and hired hsm out there al service for short pc
RODS. He then introduced them from the county OF
Alexandra into the county OF Washington claiming that
he had right do by virtue OF the OF Congress
Of 1874 which authorized slaves TO be carried from
county in the District nts the other and there 10 be held
in slavery in the that they held in the
county IRON which they wee removed On the trial of
the in the circuit court, the counsel in behalf OF the
petitioners for their freedom, asked the to instruct
Inc Jury that il they should believe from the evidence that
the Introduction OF slaves into the county Of Alexandria,
and keeping them there for a short me merely col
orable and with the intent evade the law which pro-
hibifed them from being brought directly from the State
OF Virginia into the Maryland part OF the District IL
should have no effect sanction their removal and that
the petitioners would be entitled TO their freedom. The
circuit eourrefused TO instruct the jury and the case
was brought up for revision the Supreme Court OF the
United States and that court decided that the ruling oil the
court below wrong-that the jury should have been
to Alexandria and the keeping OF the slaves there at
vice for short time was colorado with the intent TO
evade the prohibition OF the law against there being
brought directly into the county OF Washington the pc
htoners, though slaves in Virginia, entitled 10 their
freedom The court therefore, decided that the law was
valid law, and one which derived lis force entirely from
the act oil Congiess continuing the law OF Maryland in
force Is the law and, that being the fact, why
surely, there be objection to our extending the
Mr.. SEWARD demanded the yeas and nays on the
amendment, and they were ordered
Mr.. DAVIS, OF Mississippi find no controversy be-
tween the gentlemen who have spoken upon this bill
generally, except 10 what mode OF punishment shall
be imposed upon any who should introduce his
property into the District OF Columbia, II is question
merely whether individual shall be fined who intro
duces his slaves into the District whether the slave
shall be manumitted And this power attempted to be
drawn from that OF State, who, being sovereign over
her dfnh haze