The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-03-25

made in the condition of said slaves that the
clause of the Constitution prohibiting inyol-
untary servtude was prospective, not retro
spectiye, and did not destroy the owners right
of property in his slave; and that it is very
proper for the Legislature to afford to the pos
SCISSOR of rights of this character the means of
enforcing them.
Mr. Ellis said he concurred entirely with
the gentleman from San Francisco. 80 far as
related to the operation and effect of the laws
of conquered country when in conflict with
the laws of the conqueror, nor would he CUES
ton the soundness of his argument i'll support
of the right of the slave owner to carry his
property into territory which was the common
heritage of the whole body of the American
people. His objection was not to the ostensi-
BILE object contemplated by the bill, for that
object was a worthy one, and should receive
his support; but under the operations of the
Ith section he saw a necessary construction in
conflict with the solemn constitutional provi-
sion that "neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, unless for the punishment of crimes,
shall ever be tolerated in this State" This
section, by necessary implication, does toler-
ate" slavery for an unlimited series of years
1t recognises the existence of slavery, not only
since the adoption of the Constitution. but goes
farther-it prospectively throws its protecting
mantle over slavery for all time to come-at
least so long as there shall exist slave brought
into the territory of California before the adop-
ton of the Constitution or any of his progeny
The custody OF the slave is gwen. by THE law.
to the master-and no time is prescribed in
which he is required to remove him from the
State. He may therefore appropriate his labor,
and under the speciOus pretenee Of intending
to remove him at some underlined period of the
future he may hold him TO service and thus
under color Of law, and by the legitimate in
depreciation of statutory enactment, the Con-
stitution is invaded. and slavery is planted in
the soil of California. | am not willing. with
out first invoking the voice of the people, to in
troduce slavery Onto this State If gentlemen
think it desirable to introduce slavery into
California, let them call upon the people-and
their voice shall be to me as the voice of God
Mr.. Crabb addressed the House at some
length The object OF the bill was to secure
the rights of citizens of the United States to
such property as they held in this country at
IL tt::;sZ2 ths Constitution Was Stfyaed 1As
trainers OF the Constitution would not have
made a special provision prohibiting slavery in
the State, had they deemed that the Mexican
law abrogated slavery before the formation of
that instrument. Mr., Crabb maintained that
no slavery had existed in the State since its
formation for slave living with his master,
and rendering labor to him with perfect free
will and consent was not state of things in
conflict with the Constitution.
Messrs. Peachy and Ellis. of Nevada, explain
cd their positions more definitely.
Mr.. Brush could see no reason for the pas
sage of the bill, as the Fugitive Slave law, pass
ed by Congress, was sufficiently comprehensive
to cover the case. He had been branded an
abolitionist: he Indignantly denied the charge,
and proceeded to define his position
Mr.. Hammond did not stand up as a South
ern or Northern man. but as "A Californian, hav-
ing at heart the best interests of the State The
Constitution of the State strictly prohibited
slavery, and he would never advocate an en-
croachment upon that instrument He was a
pro-slavery man, reared among the institutions
of the South, but the locality Of birth would not
sway him in a conscientious discharge of his
public duties He should never attempt to in
wade the rights secured by the Constitution of
the State, or desire its change with reference
to the subject under discussion without it was
the wish of "a majority of the citizens of Cali
fornia. Mr. II. spoke with much eloquence
upon the points involved, and at considerable
length, and announced his intention to offer
several amendments, giving a limitation to sec
ton 4.
The Committee then rose, reported progress,
and leave was granted to sit again
SACRAMENTO, February 6, 1852
The Fugitive Slave bill came up in Commit
tee of the Whole House, yesterday afternoon
and was debated for three or four hours before
a final vote was taken.
Mr. McConaha moved to strike out section
| i-lost without division.
Mr.. Hammond introduced three additional
sections, one providing period of three months
| limitation for the action of the law; and the
others prescribing penalties for officers who him
der its operation
Mr. Crabb moved to amend by inserting
three years
Mr. Hammond opposed the amendment, on
the ground that it allowed the retention of
slaves within the period Of three years He
was willing that a section should be added to
the bill, providing that slaves might remain
for period of years in the country with a
condition that they become free at the expira-
ton of that time but he could not approve
position that involved a violation of the princi-
Piles of the Constitution of California.
Mr. Coffr0th moved to insert twelve months
ly adopted.
Mr.. Peachy hoped that gentlemen who in
tended to oppose the law would do 80 openly
and not by attempting to destroy the efficacy
of il, by insisting upon amendments which
would render its operation nugatory. He thought
that the period of twelve months was as short
a limitation as the nature of the case would ad-
NIT of.
Mr.. Parrish was opposed to the limitation of
the time TO less than twelve months. He said
there were slaves scattered all through the
country, who were working under an agree
ment to pay their owners per ccntage upon
their savings.
Mr. Coffroth said he was sincere in making
a motion to insert twelve months. He believed
it mattered not whether three. six. or twelve
months were substituted; he contcnded that
slavery being represented in Congress, and
recognised by the Constitution, il was therefore
protected in all territories by the fundamental
law, where no contrary municipal regulation
was In force. in Virginia where no municipal
law was ever passed for or against slavery, the
institution exists only by the fundamental law
and not by the Constitution Of the State The
slaves, therefore, brought into California when
it was territory, are slaves STILL for no State
law could be established to nullify the rights
to property guaranteed by the action of Con-
gress and the National Constitution Holding
this doctrine, he was inclined to vote for the
amendment with the original bill He Mr.
Cofroth) had been denominsted an abolition
list, and he hoped that the petty slanderer who
promulgated the rumor would sift his remarks,
to soc how much aboitionism they contained.
The debate on the limitation was continued
by Mcssrs. Ellis, Crabb, Hammond and Par
rish Mr.. Wood thought that there would be
cases where knowledge of the law would not
meet all interested in its provisions, in time to
give them the benefit of the same within the
shorter period proposed az a limit to its opera
tons. There were parties residing on the