Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-04-12

unconstitutional 1t not only interdicts slavery
in the Territories, bat it even prevents State
| from being admitted into the Union with equal
| privileges with the other States, and unless il
yields to Congress the right to determine
whether its people may or may not hold slaves
| The fourteenth section of the bill which
passed the Senate rescinds the eighth section
| Of the act preparatory to the admission of Mis-
souri, into the Union, declares the principle Of
| non.intervention by Congress, and leaves the
| regulation Of the institution of slavery to the
people ofthe Territory. In its passage through
the Senate, proyiso was added by Mr. BADGER,
| Of North Carolina, that nothing contained in
| the act should revise any law existing before
| the adoption of the Missouri restriction, pro-
tecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing
| slavery. As this has been the source of much
discomfort to some Of the southern representa-.
tives, and of objection in the south, propose
to address some remarks to the committee in
| relation to its effect. feel assured that the
| proviso did not alter the original tenor of the
bill, nor would any practical benefits result to
the south if it had been pretermitted, and the
bill had simply repealed the eighth section Of
the act of 1920. The author Of the proviso has
himself shown, in clear and vigorous explana-
| ton upon the floor of the Senate, that the
amendment he proposed did not alter the effect
of the bill as it was reported in the slightest
degree. propose to add nothing to what he
has advanced in explanation of the amend
ment but inasn.uch as his argument does not
not reach the question of the effect of q simple
repeal of the Missouri restriction, if different
bill had been drafted, in reviving slavery in the
Territ ,ry of Nebraska and Kansas, as it stood
originally by the French and Spanish laws in
1903, or afterwards under territorial and con-
gressional enactments desire to consider the
proposition under that aspect.
A gentleman Of distinction from Virginia
Mr.. MILLsoNl has maintained on this floor
that there is wide distinction between tho
bill of this House and the Senate. He not only
conceives that the Spanish and French law
established and authorized slavery throughout
the whole extent Of the Louisiana Territory at
the date Of the treaty of cession ia 1903, but
| with much research he has cited us to the hiss
tory of the organization Of other Territories,
and contends that slavery has been established
and recognised not only by custom, but by ter
ritorial laws, confirmed by acts of Congress
anterior to the Missouri restriction, and that
these laws have never been repealed and are
now in force In support he refers us to an
act in the year 1904, Of the territorial govern
ment Of Indiana, in the following passage:
But 90 further than this--a good deal further.
In the year 1904, on the 1st Of October the very
FIRST day on which any act was passed by the ter
ri,oral government Of Indiana for this Louisiana
Territory, a law was made by that government
for that Territory. And what was that law! II
was q law in regard to slaves. lis title was: "A
law respecting slaves, and il commenced thus:
asBe it enacted by the governor and judges Of
| Indiana Territory, authorized and empowered ty
an act OF Congress 10 make laws for the district Of
Louisiana, aud il ID hereby enacted by the authors
l ties Of the came, rs follows:
q The first section declares that negroes and
mulattoes shall not be witnesses, except where
/. negroes alone are parties. Tho second section
provides that slave shall go from the tenement
OF his master, or other person with whom he lives
i without a pass, and SO on. The twenty second
section declares that for the offence of stealing
slave the offender shall suffer death The thirtietf
section provides that the slaves Of an interstate
not susceptible Of equal division in kind, may be
sold.n at
And, in Subsequent portion Of his remarks
he uses the following language:
4 aBy the sixteenth section Of the act of 1912,
establishing a territorial government for Missouri,
apart and distinct from Indiana il is provided that
! guations the very words Of the proviso- THE
LAWS AND REGULATIONS an force an the Territory Of
Louisiana, al the commencement Of this act. andnot
incomsstent ,cith the provisions thereof shall coai-
tinue III force nnt altered, modified, repealed By
! The general assembly .s
s.Here,. then, is an act Of Congress expressly
| providing that the law respecting slavery, which
have Just read shall be the law Of the Territory OF
| Missouri. Congress was bound 10 know what
| laws and regulations were in force there, espe-
cially when enacted by the territorial government
because these laws were required TO be- sent TO
Congress for revision, and if disapproved were 10
be void. So far from being annuled, however, II
was established as law of the Territory OF Mis-
souri, and that the law prior TO and at the time
of the passage ofthe act of6th of March, $780, the
date OF the Missouri prohibition.
But as have already said. these laws have
never been repealed. Yes, sir, they now in
| over which those laws now operating. What
| effect then, did the act Of the 9th March, 1920
| have upon them II simply prohibited slavery
| north Of 36o 30. Il did not repeal the laws
| Those laws are now in existence. Il simply re.
stricted and confined the practical operation Of
those laws and statutes TO particular localities,
but il did not annul and repeal the laws them.
selves have shown that in 1922 the legislature
Of Missouri refers to them as still in existence
regret that do not see him in his seat, in
order that he might have an opportunity of ex.
planning and defending his views.
The first introduction Of slavery into the Lou
isiana Territory was about the year 17l3. A few
soldiers were scattered through the garrison,
and few French families, with some twenty
negro slaves, were the only inhabitants of the
province, except the aborigines Of the country.
universally ICSOSuioCu ~ Suas tikAiC 40 .
institution by all the European governments,
slavery was introduced during the period when
Iberville, Sauvalle, and Bienville were the gov.
ernors Of the colony. During the monopoly Of
the banker, Crozat, there were very few slaves /;
but shortly after he surrendered his charter
considerable importations took place. After.
wards, in l762, when Louisiana was transferred
to Spain by the treaty Of Fontainbleau, after
the French war, the plantations Of Louisiana
had become quite extensive, and the number Of
slaves was greatly augmented.
1t is not disputed that slavery existed de fdcto
in the province when we bought it IN 1903; but
it may be as well, however, to suggest to gen
tlemen who are curious upon this subject, to
examine whether slavery was recognised at all
by the statutory law of France ut the date Of
The purchase. The French constituent assem-.
bly,, in l79l, inAamed by the harangues Of Bris'
sot and other fanatics, and against the opposi-
ton Of Barnave and others, extended the privi-