New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-05-20

thai Ire Dlil Nttib hiiN uI.'N q" ''4'N'
brcuchr in before The adoption If the Con-
>ti,uiion on November Is. 1919. H.
oortcnltd very Justly. that to apply
the RIGHT of -eclemation TO persons sub
.eouenilv imported would be unconSt-
tu,jonal, because it would be recognizing
slavery os legally existing in the State
after he Constitution had been adopted
and taken effect. The supporters OF the
bill maintained on the other hand, that
the people were not bound by the Constl-
tuition until The State had been admitted
into the Union, and that had no admission
taken place. the Constitution would have
been void,-a palpable abSurdity, because
the State was organized. Governor, Mem
hers of Legislature and other functionares
chosen and installed, laws passed and en-
forced, for nearly year prior to the adj
mission, and without any dependence what
ever on that event. But as the original
provision would give slavery rights which
the Constitution expressly denies, by en-
aiding slave-owners to reclaim any slaves
brought in during the ten months while
the question of admission was pending at
Washington. the motion to strike out fall
ed, eight Senators voting for it and SIN
teen against It. This vote being recon-
sidered. the motion was again lost, only
nine Senators voting in the affirmative to
seventeen in the negative. In all the dis
cussions reported we do not find that any
Senator took the ground that while Cali
fornia was a Territory the Mexican laws
against slavery were in force. Probably
the opponents of the bill knew that it
would be hopeless to urge such consider
alton against it. Thus it was admitted
tacitly if not explicitly, that before Cali
fornia became State, slaves could be held
there as we'll as in any of the slave
States.
The bill as amended finally passed the
Senate on the Sth of April; the amend
ments were concurred in by the House, and
there was no reason to suppose that the
Governor would Withhold his signature.
Long ere this the bill is doubtless law.
Its provisions are that all slaves brought
by their owners into California before the
9th of September, 1850, may be reclaimed
the same as if they had run away from the
slave States. The reclamation must be
made within twelve months from the pas
sage of the act !; though in case of slaves
who conceal themselves to avoid being re-
claimed, the right of the owner remains in
definitely. Slaves so reclaimed must be
removed from the State within twelve
months that is to say, the party reclaim
ing slave under the act, may hold and
use him as a slave in the State during a
year, the Constitution to the contrary not
withstanding. 1t is true that the bill has
proviso declaring that the master shall
hold a slave only for the purpose of remov-
ing him, and shall not enjoy any profits or
benefits from his labor during the time he
is kept in the State but this amounts to
nothing against the clause which allows
the removal to be protfacted for twelve
month. A proviso, moved by Mr.. Brod-
erick, to compel masters to free slaves
brought into the State under contract to
work q certain time for their freedom, at
the end of the stipulated time, was rejected,
as was another giving negroes taken before
the Courts the same rights as criminals,
and another giving every slave arrested
the right to asert his freedom and have the
question tried. The whole law as passed
is palpably framed to subserve. to the
utmost. the interests of slave-Owners and
to trample on the principles as well as on
the express letter Of the Constitution of
the State.
How many persons are liable to be
seized under the provisions of this law we
baveno means of knowing. The Picayune,
of San Francisco, an able Anti Slavery pa
per, though conducted by a Southern man,
says there are none, but we see it stated in
other journals that there are many. We
presume however that The Picayune is not
far from right, and that the object of the
law Is, as that paper AYERS, mainly to es
tablish slavery in the State furtively, be-
cause it cannot be done openly. OF course,
this law is open to be revised and annuled
by the tribunals, but it is doubtful how far
they are independent of the influences
which have prevailed in the Legislature
The Iext step will be to renew the move
.a.axat En-: Tho rox.:..;l.x, &C IL