Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-01-11

Wot-Wtnout
could estabshed and in my humble opnion
its dsys will have teen numbered when cease to regard
them they regarded by those early patriots Tkere
undoubtedly sectional interests and sectional feelings
manifested extent IN the convention iha formed the
cons,ituton will mention of them. The subject of
slavery was delicate one with the South, lest should be
nteered with contrary their wishes the other hand,
the OF the East created somewhat OF
sectional feeling the other geographical extreme where the
desire was universal place this great interest OF New Eng
land under the control General Government which could
secure from foreign interference or competition The States
the South then had the right to import slaves from Africa
any extent might seem to them e1pedient
right which they could have retained till this day but for
the which limits il to the year 1903. The
mee whom the subject had been referred first reported in
favor of the year 1900 The South particularly restve
under this proposed estrcion and the delegates from
Of the Southern States nmated that they could
into the Union upon such condition. committee had
the same me reported favor Of restricting Congress from
passing any navigation laws, unless by wothrds vote Of
the members-a condition which New England felt TO be fatal
to her interests In this condition of things both subjects
were recommited to the committees and compromise
the result They reported to permit the slave trade TO
60 till the year s0s and to authorize Congress to pass
navigation laws without the thirds restriction. Both
commentators tremendously adopted by the
on and will be found upon the record that the question
of giving the longest time s0s) for the slave trade New
Hampshire, Massachusetts,, and Connecticut he only New
England States then represened voted in the affirmative,
with the South against the votes OF the central States
that article in the constitution which requires the
render Of fugitive slaves of which the Of Congress
that subject have sprung, not voice from New England
raised against tit passed with entire nnanmity.
And when mention the venerated names OF Roger Sher-
man, Oliver Ellsworth, and William Samuel Johnson the
who then represented the honor and interests Of Con-
necticu that voice in this community will
utter reproach upon their memories was not that these
delegates their associates from the other portions of New
England favor of slavery 10 any of its forms Far
from it. Most, if all of them, had taken part in the
early legislation of the Eastern States to be rid Of in our
borders But in the Convention they did not forget that they
forming united Government for separate and indepen
dent Soveregnes having different local neress habits and
pursuits Government limited in its operation to matters
mostly external, and which left the internal and domestic
concerns of each State far consistently could be- to Its
own legislation. And though they voted permit the slave
trade such States might choose to have it till the
1905, yet that better than form union at ALL
and thus leave to forever under Soveregnles dis
united and independent of each other So when they agreed
that fugves should be delivered up, il but part
of the compact by which the importation limited, and
probably secured to the slave population OF the South more
liberties and greater ndugencies from those whom they
served than they would have had without it for without
such provision the would very naturally resort
and rigid discipline prevent escapes that would
always be attended with total loss In this connexion
may be permitted to add that although the word slave
nowhere appears in the constitution of the United States
there stdiousness about using among The members
Of the Convenon-yet the Connecticut delegation had
call things persons by the appropriate names
and State voted with Virginia and Georgia to
substitute the wsrd "saves" for the word "persons "
where they in the article that subject.
Such the action of the Convention this disturbing
subject After the adoption of the Constitution, it was
brought to the early attention of Congress- and that body in
the session Of 1929 passed law similar in its principles
to the one which has lately been violently denounced
This provides (he of 93) that the master Of any
fugitive slave from another State may sezs him either by
himself Attorney without warrant for the arrest and take
him before judge or justice of the peace and upon proof
to the satisfaction OF the magistrate, either oral by affidavit
that the person arrested fugitive slave, is made the du
ty Of the magistrate give certificate of the fact which
certificate made to be sufficient to take the fugi
tive back to the jurisdiction from which he 1t also i'm
posed penalty of $500 any who should obsruc the
proceedings conceal the fugitive knowing the fact. 1t
will be difficult find any thing the late summa-
ry stringent than this and there any foundation
tr the objections of which have lately heard much in
regard to the trial by jury and the writ of habeas corpus
they would apply in all their force this act, which has
again and again received the sanction the hghs judicial
authorities of the land. Indeed may that all the ees
aton fCongess this subject whether of l7a3 $780, is
borrowed from New England. Th" first provision that |
find for the surrender of fugves among the articles Of
federation entered into the 7b September l643 between
the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut and
New Haven. Il is the sih article, and reads thus
is also agreed that if any away from his
into any other these conedersted Jurisdictions that
such case upon the certificate the u
risdcton out of which the said ed upon other
proof the said servant shall be delivered either his
any other that pursues, and brings such certificate or
proof" "..
The similarity is striking that think cannot mis-
take the origin of the different enactmens Connected with
this article in the New England Confederation
ther equally summary for the delivery Of ugves from JUS
tce much the subjects connected in the constu
tona article and the Of l793 and still sikngy
marking their common origin. Any who is curious on
this subject may find the New England articles in Humans
Historical Collections, pages 3D. 35-a book that may be
found in the public Libraries of this city and in private libra
ries The Historical Collections Of Massachusetts will also
show that other distant colonies confederaed with u
far South Virginia, applied through their Governors to the
authorities of New England for the of ugitves which
were returned matter Of courtesy and colonial
law even without any articles requiring it. When the act Of
l793 therefore, before Congress, it is not at all
prsng that met with serious opposition from this
ton Of the country 1t first introduced the Senate of
the United States, and said have been penned by Mr.
Cabot distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, though
have not the journal of the Senate that will enable
speak from the recrd 1t passed. however, that body by
unanimous VOTE In the House Of Representatives the jour
nal shows that passed by the decisive AZ THE
Northern and Central States and twenty-five from States
holding slaves. The minority was composed Of Eve members
from the North and two from the South The Northern and
Central States had, will be seen, majority in the House
find Of the Connecticut deleg the names Of James Hill
house, jeremiah Wadsworh, and Amasa Learned voting
for the BILL and but Of MEMBERS Jonathan Stuges
voting against it. This will be found in the old edition Of
the United States laws bearing upon the Of Jonathan
Trumbull, who then Speaker Of the House and men,
Der from Connecticut-an honored in history and
bearing also the approving name Of honored-
GEORGE WASHINGTON find also in the list of those
og for Ebdge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Theodore gewick
who, be presumed, understood their duies well
least those who make greater pretensions now find
ao there the of Elias BoudIot the father and first
ntaffh Afae