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

clause of the Constitution prohibiting inyol- |
untary servitude was prospective, not retro
spectiye, and did not destroy the owners right |
of property in his slave and that il 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, so far as
related to the operation and effect of the laws
of a conquered country, when in conflict with
the laws of the conqueror, nor would he queS-
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-
bic object contemplated by the BILL for that
object was 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
servtude 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 wears.
1t recognises the existence of slavery. not only
since the adoption of the Constitution but goes
tarther-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 given by this 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 pretence 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 into this State. IL gentlemen
think it desirable to introduce slavery into
California, let them call upon the people-and
their voice shall be to me rs 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
:, 81, f.fe me cnnsLltuus, pAs s35dnfna Ttnp4
trainers oil the Constitution would not have
made special provision prohibiting slavery in
the State had they deemed that the Mexican
law abrogated slavery before the formation of
that instrument MIR Crabb maintained that
no slavery had existed in the State since its
formation for a 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
Nlessrs. 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
iornia. Mr.. H. spoke with much eloquence
upon the points involved, and at considerable
length, and announced his intention to offer
several amendments, giving limitation to sec
ton A.
The Committee then rose, reported progress,
and leave was granted to sit again.
SACRAMENTO, February g. 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
final vote was taken.
Mr. McConaha moved to strike out section
4-lost without n 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 section should be added to
the bill, providing that slaves might remain
for u period of years in the country, with u
condition that they become free at the expira-
ton of that time but he could not approve a
position that involved violation of the prnc-
Piles of the Constitution of California
Mr.. Colfroth moved to insert twelve months,
and Mr.. Ellis six months but twelve was final
ly adopted.
MIR. Peachy hoped that gentlemen who in
tended to oppose the law would do so openly,
and not by attempting to destroy the efficacy
of it, by insisting upon amendments which
would render its operation nugatory. He thought
that the period of twelve months was as short
limitation as the nature of the case would ad-
NIT Of
MIR. 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 centage upon
their savings
Mr.. Coffroth said he was sincere in making
motion to insert twelve months. He believed
it mattered not whether three. six, or twelve
months were substituted; he contended that
slavery being represented in Congress, and
recognised by the Constitution, it 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 a territory, are slaves still, for no State
law could he 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.
Coffroth) had been denominsted an abolition
ist, and he hoped that the petty slandcrer who
promulgated the rumor would sift his remarks
to see how much abolitionism they contained
The debate on the limitation was continued
by Mcssrs. Ellis, Crabb, Hammond, and Par
IRISH. Mr.. Wood thought that there would be
cases where a 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 a. a limit to its opera
tons There were parties residing on the
frontier Of the State who could not know what