The southern press., 1852-04-06
From the Ns,o Orleans Picayune.
Slave Question In California.

The recent debates and votes in the Califor-
mia Legislature on the subject of slavery and the
surrender of fugitive slaves, are not at all agreea
BILE to the Freesoilers of the North. They
hurried and urged the admission of the State
into the Union, in the expectation that they had
obtained a strong ally in Freesoil measures,
and the propagation Of Freesoil doctrines To
their disappointment the whole tone of the
State since her admission has been conservative
and constitutional on the subject Her public
men have given uniform support to the South
ern views of constitutional right and now the
popular branch of the legislature, by a very
large majority, has, in legislative act, affirmed
the opinions which were, during the whole of
the late agitation in regard to slavery in the
territories, held to be peculiarly Southern. We
do no wonder, therefore, to find the Freesoi
papers uttering lament and resentment that CAL
ifornia SO decidedly repudiates their positions
and purposes.
The California bill, to which we refer, is that
for the surrender Of fugitive slaves IL is aux
iiary to the act of Congress. 1t affords State
aid to the federal officers, and imposes heavy
State penalties on attempts to obstruct the rem.
dition of slaves. This portion of the act is not
of essential importance 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 en-
forcing the constitutional obligation, and rs
such il has welcome significance. The really
important part is, however, contained in the
fourth section, which relates to slaves which
were carried into the territory before its admis
sion as State, and still remain there.
The State constitution contains an article
which declares that neither slavery, nor invol-
untary servitude, except for the punishment 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 prevailing in the territory at the
time Of cession 10 the United States. II
those laws remained in force after the transfer.
slavery could not exist, and the negroes were
free. Eminent jurists have held opposite opin
ions; but the prevailing opinion in the South
has been that the Constitution Of the United
States, which recognizes property in slaves, be-
came the paramount law, and repealed the
Mexican ordinances Even had IL been-which
was disputed-a complete ard valid act under
the fundamental law Of Mexico, the right 10
hold these slaves in territory Of the United
States was claimed rs an essential Southern
right, and maintained, with few marked ex-
ceptions, by the Southern statesmen Of both
political parties.
What was debatable, however, on these points,
has been generally treated ms settled by the con.
siitution Of the State. The article which pro.
nounces that slavery shall never be tolerated.
in the State, has been constru as rendering
the rendition Of slaves illegal, and discharging
from all claim Of service every person held as a
slave.
The bill which has received so heavy vote
in the California legislature distinctly approves
the right of property in the master, against both
these pleas, for the emancipation Of the slaves.
The fourth section declares that all slaves
brought within the limits Of the State before Il
was admitted into the Union, may be claimed by
their masters, and returned 10 the place from
which they were brought; and II they refuse.
they may be arrested and removed, as in case OF
other fugitives from labor" II was maintained
in debate, and asserted by the vote, that the
Mexican law could not operate 10 deprive citi-
zens Of rights recognized by the Constitution
Of the United States; and that the State con
stitution could only act prospectively and did not
emancipate those who we're slaves in fact. The
practical effect Of the law is not 10 encourage
the continuance Of slaves in California. but
rather to afford masters legal facilities 10 claim
and remove them. The bill is limited 10 twelve
months, within which all the powers of the State
will be given 10 the assistance Of the stakeholder
N recovering his property, and taking Il into a
slave State. AS there are many hundreds In
California, this IL no slight privilege but lis
general importance IL that which we have al
ready spoken Of as an indication Of the preva-
leuce in California Of strong conservative opin-
ions in favor of the constitutional rights Of
shareholders, and the duty Of non-slaveholding
States 70 support them by direct and affirmative
action.