Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-12

eral government to the institution Of slavery
within the States. / might quote the decision
Of the celebrated Chancellor Wythe, OF Virginia,
(overruled afterwards know, in the court of
appeals that slavery was so againstjust that
the presumption Of freedom must be allowed
in favor of every alleged slave suing for liberty,
and thatethe onus OF proving the contrary
rested upon the master.
think have now shown that the ordinance
of 1887 and the Constitution OF the United
States were absolutely in harmony one, with
the other; and that if The ordinance had never
been adopted the Constitution itself, properly
interpreted and administered, would have ex-
clnded slavery from all uewly-acquired terri
tory. But, sir, whatever opinion NAV be en-
tertained in respect toshe interpretation Of the
Constitution which | defend, one thing is alb
solutely indisputable, and that is, that it was
the original policy Of the country to exclude
slavery from all national territory.
That policy was never departed from until
the year $780, when Congress accepted the
cession ofwhat is now Tennessee from North
Carolina. But did the acceptance Of that ces-
sion Indicate any purpose of establishing a
geographical line between slavery and free
dom? Why, sir on the contrary. the State of
North Carolina, aware that in the absence Of
any stipulation to the contrary slavery would
be prohibited in the ceded territory in pur-
suance of the established policy Of the govern
ment, introduced into her deed of cession an
express provision that the anti-slavery article
Of the ordinance of 1887 should not be applied
to it. 1t may be said that Congress shosld
have refused to accept the cession. agree in
that opinion. But slavery already existed in
the district as part Of the State Of North Caro-
lima, and it was probably thought unreasonable
TO deny the wish Of the State for its continu-
ance.
The same motives decided the act on Of
Georgia, in 1902, in making her cession of the
territory between her western limits and the
Mississippi, and the action of Congress accept.
ing it. The acceptance Of these cessions, as
well as the adoption and re-enactment by Con.
gress Of the slave laws of Maryland for the
District of Columbia. were departures from
original policy; but they indicated no purpose
TO establish any geographical line. They were
the result of the gradually increasing indifer
ence TO the claims of freedom, plainly per-
ccivable in the history of the country after the
adoption of the Constitution. Luther Martin
had complained, in 1883, that "when our own
liberties were at stake we wa.4lly felt for the
common rights of man. The danger being
thought to be passed which threatened our
selves, we are daily growing more and more
insensible 10 those rights" 1t was this grow.
ing insensibity which led to these departures
from original. policy. Afterwards, III 1903,
Louisiana was acquired from France. Did we
then hasten TO establish geographical line !?
No, sir. In Louisiana, as in the territories ac-
CURED from Georgia and North Carolina, Con-
gress RETAINED from applying the policy of
1857; Congress did not interfere with existing
slavery; Congress conten,ed itself with enact
ments prohibiting absolutely the introduction
Of slaves from beyond the limits Of the United
States and also prohibiting their introduction
from any of the States, except by bona tide
owa,rs actually removing to Louisiana for set
Element. When Louisiana was admitted into
the Union in 1912, no restriction was imposed
npon her in respect to slavery. At this time,
there were slaves all along up the west bank OF
the Mississippi as far Us st. Louis, and perhaps
even above.
In 1878 Missouri applied for admission into
the Union The free States aweke TO the dan.
ger Of the total overthrow Of the original policy
OF the country. They saw that no State had
taken measures for the abolition OF slavery
siace the adoption of the Constitution. They
saw that the feeble attempt to restrict the in
PRODUCTION of slaves into the territories acquired
from Georgia and from France had utterly
failed. They insisted, therefore, that, in the
formation OF o constitution, the people of the
proposed State should embody in 1t provision
Tor the gradual abolition OF the existing slavery
and prohibiting the further Introduction Of
slaves. By this time the slave interest had be.
come strong, and the slave power was pretty
firmly established, The demand of the free
States was vehementiy contested. A bill pre-
paratory to the admission Of Missouri, con-
tanning the proposed restriction, was passed BY
the House and sent TO the Senate. In that
body the bill was amended bv striking out the
restriction. The House refused to concur in the
amendment !; the Senate insisted upon il, and
the bill failed. At the next session of Congress
the controversy was renewed In the mean
timc Maine had been severed from Massachu-
sets, had adopted constitution, and had APP
piled for admission into the Union. A bill
providing for her admission passed the House,
and was sent to the Senate. This bill was
amended in the Senate BY lacking to it bill
for the admission Of Missouri. and By the add
ton of section prohibiting slavery in all the
territory acquired By Louisiana north of $50
30<. The House refused to concur in these
amendments, and the Senate asked for commit
tee Of conference, to which the House agreed.
During the progress of these events, the House,
after passing the Maine bill. had also passed
bill for the admission Of Missouri. embodying
The restriction upon slavery in the State. The
Senate amended the bill BY striking out the
restriction, and by inserting the section pro,
hib,ting slavery north of So 30<.
This section came from the south through
Mr.. Thomas q senator from Illinois, who had
uniformly voted with the slave States against
all restriction. 1t was adopted on the 18th Of
February, 1920, as an amendment TO the Maine
and Missouri bill, by "a ayes against 10 noes.A
Mr.. HUNTER. ] think that the provision
passed without division Ia the Senate.
Mr.. CHASE. The senator is mistaken
Fourteen senators from the slave States, and
twenty from the free States voted for that
amendment. Eight from the former, and two
from the latter voted against it. No vote by
ayes and noes was taken when the same amend.
lnent was engrafted upon the separate Missouri
bill, q few days later; the sense Of the Senate
having been ascertained by the former vote.
This was the condition Of matters when the
committee Of conference, Tor which the Senate
~ .l.x1 A. 49,.