Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-08-06

the point for the consideration Of his govern
ment, and in the mean time, allowing and
facilitating the taking of schedules OF all
slaves taken away-Dame' nges sex, former
owners, and states from which taken. The
government resisted compensation, upon the
ground of war captUres--that, being taken
in war, no matter how, they became, like
other plumber, the property of the cnptors,
who had a right to dispose of il rs tney
pleased and had chosen to set il free-thnt
the slnves having become free, belonged to
nobody, and consequently it was no breach
of the treaty stipulation TO carry them
away. This ground was contested by the
Congress of the Confederation to the end OF
its existence, and afterwards by the new
federal government, from its commencement
until the claim for indemnity YVES waived or
abandoned at the conclusion Of jays treaty,
in l706. The very first message of Wash
ington to Congress presented the inexecution
of the treaty of peace in this particular
(0mong others) as one Of the compl9ints Justly
existing against Great Britain and all the
diplomacy of his administration was exerted
10 obtain redress--in vain. The treaties of
'9l and '06 were both signed without dluson
TO the suject, the claim sunk into the class
of obsolete demands and the stipulation
remained in the treaty as dead letter, al
though containing the precise word negroes
on which the Emperor Alexander took the
stand which demanded compensation and
dispensed with arguments founded on the
laws of war. Not u shilling has been re-
ceved for that immense depieddtion upon
private property, although the Congress of
the Confederation adopted the strongest re-
solves, and even ordered all the states to be
furnished with copies of the schedules OF the
slaves taken from itself; aud hopes of in
demniiy were kept nlivo until extinguished
by the treaty of '96. Ii was bitter com
plant against that treaty, ms the Congress
debates of the the time, and the public press,
abundently show.
"Northeren men did their duty to tho
South in getting compensation, land, whnt is
infinitely more, establishing the principle
that there shall bc compensation in such
cases,) for the slaves carried away in the war
of 1879. A majority of tho commissioners
at Ghent, who obtained the stipulation for
indemnity, were northern men Adams, Rus
sell, Gallntnn from the free, 0nd Clay and
Bayard from the slave states. A northern
negocintor, (Mr. Gallatau,) under northern
President, Mr.. John Quincy Adatus,) finally
obtained il and il is n coincidence worthy
of remark, that this northern ncgotiator, who
was finally successliil, WINS the same ,lebater
in Congress, in '06, who delivered the best ar
gument, in my opinion surprising even that
of Mr.. Madison, against the grounds on
which the British government resisted the
execution of this article of the treaty. ] am no
man to stir up old claims against the federal
government, and detest the trade which ex-
humes such claims and the facility with which
they are presented. But must say, that the
argument on which the French spoilaton
ton, applies with infinitely more force TO the
planters whose slaves were taken during the
war of the Revolution, than in the behalf of
these French spoilOtion claims. They were
contibuting-so in their persons in the
camp or council, all in their voluntary or tax
contributons-to the independence of their
country, when they were thus dcspoed Of
their property. They depended upon these
slaves to support their families while they
were supporting their country. They were
in debt 10 British merchants and relied upon
compensation for these slaves to pay those
debts, at the very moment when compensa-
ton was abandoned by the same treaty which
enforced the payment of tho debts. They
had treaty obligation for indemnity, express
in its terms, and since shown to bo valid,
when deprived of this stipulation by another
treaty, in order TO obtain general advantages
for the whole Union.
This is something like taking private pro-
perty for public use. Three thousand slaves,
the property of Ascertained individuals, pro-
tected by n treaty stipulation, and afterwards
abandoned by another treaty, against the
euireaties and reinonsrnnces Of the owners,
in order 10 obtain the British commercial
treaty of ~, and its supplement of '96: such
is the case which this revolutionary spoilation
OF slave property presents, and which puts it
immensurably ahead of the French spoilation
claims prior to 1900. There is but four
year in their nges-in the dates of the two
treaties by which they were respectively
surrendered-and every other difference be-
tween the two cases is an argument OF pre-
ference in favor of the losers under the treaty
of 1906. Yet ! am against both, and each,
separately or together; and put them in
contrast to make one stand as an argument
against the other. But the primary reason
for introducing the spoilAtion case of 1888
and comparing its less fortunate issue will
that of 1912, was to show that northern men
will do justice to the South that northern
men obtaned for the South an indemnify
and security IN our day, which southern
administration, with Washington ut its head
Ind not been able to obtain in the days o
our fathers.
WHAT OUTRAGE NEXT i-In the case of FREQ