The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-23

but certainly gives no oountenance to it. o.
the contrary it makes it ground and reason
for reducing the representative power of tn
communities upholding it SO that it is in fact
positive Encouragement to Slavery.
The second provision, as we have already ex
planned, secured for the General Government
power TO put an end to the slave traffic in 1905
a real gain to Freedom and Humanity, as be
fore the adoption of this it had no power owe
the subject whatsoever. The securing this pow
er was triumph of the Anti Slavery Principle
of our fathers; the postponement of It's exer
else till 1908, was the result of circumstances
as they thought, beyond their control.
The third clause certainly does not apply il
terms to slaves; it does embrace, we all know
the case of free persons, held to service or la
Dor, as apprentices. Were court, in its ad
ministration of a law passed in strict conform
ity to this provision, to confne itself to it,
terms no slave could be delivered up under it
because no slave otceS or can oace service. The
slave renders service to his master not because
it is "due," in the language of the Constitution
it. We know only by history that the provi
sion was intended by those who introduced il
to apply to both fugitive slaves and appren.
tees !. but from the same history we learn that
it was introduced incidentally, attracted little
attention, and was adopted without careful
examination of its bearings or probable conse-
quences; that the object of it was to prevent
the owners of slaves in the States from sustain
ing loss by their escape, but that no one
dreamed that it sanctioned Slavery, encour-
aged il, or would perpetuate it.
The Sentinel dweIls upon this clause of the
Constitution with great complaceucy, assum-
ing that it establishes Slavery throughout the
Union, and surrounds it everywhere with the
sanction and support of the General Govern
ment. Where is it's authority for the assump-
ton If it confne itself 10 the provision alone,
to the only legitimate construction, its terms
suggest and the general spirit and aim of the
Federal Constitution warrant then we say that
provision is not applicable to slaves at ALL If
it refer to History, and the Madison Papers
containing an account of the proceedings of
the Federal Convention that adopted it, for the
purpose of showing that it was intended to
embrace the case of fugitive slaves, then it
must not 60 beyond History and that record
But, if it appeal to them, then it must admit,
that public sentiment in the colonies, when
they embarked in the war of Independence, was
against Slavery; that after the Declaration of
Independence, State after State by judicial de-
cision or Legislative enactment, recognised the
policy Of emancipation that in the last Con-
gress of the Confederation, sitting at the same
time the Convention that formed our present
Constitution was in session, the famous Ordi-
nance Of 1887 was passed, excluding Slavery
forever from the Territory Northwest of the
Ohio riyer-the only Territory then belonging to
the United States that this act was not the Off
spring of any purpose to draw line between
slave territory and free, but of the policy then
dictated by public sentiment of limiting Sla-
gerry. that in the Convention that formed the
present Constitution, Slavery was uniformly
treated as an exceptional and transient system,
to be tolerated as necessary evil, for the time,
framed as to avoid mentioning its name, or
recognising its fundamental principle, 80 that
it might at any time be abolished in the States
without the slightest change being required in
the Federal Constitution, that the delegates
from Virginia and Maryland were the most
strenuous against the insertion of any provision
that might encourage the perpetuation or ex-
tension of the evil; that an amendment having
been proposed which seemed to involve the rec
ognition of the idea that man could hold man
as property, it was modified 80 as to exclude
this idea, at the suggestion of Mr.. Madison,
who insisted that the Constitution they were
forming ought not to contain any implication
that man could be property; that the abolition
of the slave trade in those days was regarded
as involving the abolition of Slavery; that the
clause comforting power in Congress to pro-
hibit the slave trade in 1905 was adopted with
a view to facilitate and hasten the extinction
of Slavery; and that the provision in regard to
fugitives from service or labor was not intended
even by the South Carolina delegates, who sug-
gested il, to give encouragement or sanction to
Slavery, to establish it under the jurisdiction of
the General Government, to nationalize it, but
merely as a stipulation between the States Sc.
curing the STAKEHOLDER against pecuniary loss
through the occasional escape of his slaves,
and shat it was agreed to with scarcely any
discussion or examination, in a. Convention the
great majority of the members of which acted,
whenever the subject of Slavery was referred
to, under the full persuasion that, as it was a
temporary institution, whatsoever arrangements
might be made respecting it, would of course be
temporary, and not vitiate the essential char
acter of the Constitution they were forming
The Sentinel may then take its choice. fit
conne itself to the letter of the clause there ia
no Slavery in it; if it 60 to History and the
Record for the Interpretation, it must stand
upon our ground and come to our conclusion.
AS confirming our views, as illustrating the
intention of those who framed the Federal Con-
stitution and the opinions of Madison, a recog-
missed authority with Southern statesmen, and
as incidental though forcible testimony to the
soundness of the position assailed by the Sem
tinel we shall close this article by quoting
freely from debate which sprung up on the
subject of the slave trade, in the first Congress
under the Constitution.
The tariff bill having been reported in the
House, in May, 1879, Mr.. Parker, of Virginia,
moved to insert clause imposing duty of ten
dollars on every slave imported. He was sorry
that Congress had not the power to stop the
importation altogether. at was contrary to
revolutionary principles, and ought not to be
permittedn Smith. of South Carolina. with