The primitive Republican. (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-1852, 1852-04-08
From I'D Il. D. 1919.
Slave Question in California.

Slave Question in California.
The recent debates and votes in the Cali
fornia Legislature on the subject Of slavery,
and tbe surrender 81 fugitive slaves, are not
at all agreeable to the Free Sellers Of the
North. Thy hurried aud urged the admis-
sion Of the State into the Union, in the ex-
ptRtation that they had obtained u strong ally
in Free Soil measures, and in the propaga-
ton nf Free Soil doctrines. To their dis
appointment the whole tone of the State
sincNber admission, has beon conservative
Unconstitutional on the subject. Her pub
lie men have given uniform support to the
Southern views of constitutional right, and
now The popular branch of the Legislature,
by Z very large maiority, has, in legislative
act, affirmed the Unions, which were during
The. whole of the late agitation in regard to
slayefy in the Garritories, held to be pecu-
liarly Southern. We do not wonder, there
fore, to find the Free Soil papers uttering la
mentS aud resentment that California so de-
eidedly repudiates their positions and pur-
poses.
The California<bill, to which we refer, is
that for the sumepder of fugitive slaves
1t is auxiliary to the act of Congress. 1t
affords State aid the federal officers, and
imposes heavy State penalties on attempts
to obstruct the rendition of slaves. This
portion of the act is not of essential impor-
lance in practice, but it is valuable as the
first official manifestation by any free State
of an approval of the surrender of fugitives,
and determination to aid in enforcing the
constitutional obligation, aud as such it has
welcome significance. The really import
ant part is, however, contained in the fourth
section, which relates to slaves which were
carried into the Territory before its admis-
sion as a State and still remain there.
The State constitution contains an article
which declares that 'neither slavery nor in
voluntary servitude, except for the punish
ment of crimes, shall ever be tolerated in
this State" The true condition now of the
slaves carried there before the adoption of
the constitution has been much vexed
question. The first argument in favor of
their freedom rests on the Mexican law pre-
vailing in the territory at the time of ces-
sion to the United States. If those laws re-
manned in force after the transfer, slavery
could not exist, and these negroes were free.
Eminent juristS have held opposite opinions;
but the prevailing opinion in the South has
been that the constitution of the United
States, which recognizes property in slaves,
became the paramount law and repealed the
Mexican ordinances. Even had it been
which was disputed complete and valid
act under the fundamental law of Mexico,
the right to hold these slaves in territory
of the United States was claimed as an es-
sential Southern right, and maintained, with
few marked exceptions by the Southern
statesmen Of both political parties.
What was dcbateable, however, on these
points, has been generally treated as settled
by the constitution Of the State. The arti-
Gle which pronounces that slavery shall me
yer be tolerated" in the State, has been con
strued as rendering the rendition of slaves H.
legal, and diSchaglng from all claim Of ser
vice every person held as Il slave.
The bill which has received so heavy d
vote in the California Legislature distinctly
approves the right of property in the mas
ter, against both these pleas, for the emanci
patton of the slaves. The fourth section de
clares that all slaves brought within the lin
, its of the State before it was admitted int
the Union may be claimed by their masters
and returned to the place from which they
were brought; and if they refuse, they ma,
be arrested and removed as in cases of othe
"fugitives from labor" 1t was maintained
in debate, asserted by the vote, that the Mex
, lean law could not operate to deprive citizen
of rights recognized by the constitution O
: the United States; and that the State con
: stitution could only act prospcctively, an
t did not emancipate those who were slaves i
: fact. The practical effect of the law is nc
. to encourage the continuance of slaves i
California, but rather to afford masters lcga
+ facilities to claim and remove them. tn
+ bill is limited to twelve months, within whic
y all the powers of the State will be given t
. the assistance of the STAKEHOLDER in recover
ing his property, and taking it into slav
State As there are many hundreds in Cal
e fornia, this is no slight privilege; but il
t, general importance is that which we have a
= ready spoken of as an indication of the pr
valence in California of strong conservadN
y opinions in favor of the constitutional RICH
a of shareholders, and the duty of non-slav
II holding States to support them by direct al
!. affirmative action.