The Empire County argus., 1854-04-01

NUMBER 90.


neither my slave or myself could interfere. am
willing and desrous that slaves brought here before
the adoption of our constitution should be removed,
and will vote to afford their owners every facility
for so doing. But do not want the owners of
slaves to bring them here now, and expect us to
pass law for their removal in defiance of that ex-
press provision Of the constitution which | have
read. The bill before us extending the time of this
act, believe to be wrong: it is inconsistent with
ITSELF with its title and with the constitution it
opens the door to fraud and then perpetrates that
fraud. am not desirous that this subject of sla-
very should be thrust upon US here, neither do |
desire its discussion elsewhere. | look upon the
man who unnecessarily agitates this question as q
political pirate. am sorry that this bill was in
troduced for under the oath have taken to sup
port the constitution must cast my vote against it.
Mr. Herbert. replied by saying, that the gentle
man who preceded him had had a great deal to say
upon the constitution connected with this bill
but ne could not see the force of his arguments in
this connection. Slaves were property, and as prop
erty the owners of them had The right to bring
them to this state before the adoption of the consti
tution--as much right as they had to put spurs to
their mules and drive them here. After the adop-
tion of the constitution time had been given for the
removal of these slaves. The bill before the House
simply proposed to extend this time for year, and
its passage was but act Of Justice to the owners
of this species of property
The right of the owners of slaves to remove with
them into a territory was not denied they had also
the right to take them out again. and he believed
no constitutional provision could take from them
this right If such construction was put upon the
clause in constitution was then in the nature
of an eXpost facto law and as such was overruled
by the constitution Of the L. S. and the law of
Congress. He thought the bill under consideration
had reference only to the slaves brought here before
the admission of California. The slaves were here
they had been brought here under the constitution
| INV t,,,,n
should not be given to the owners to remove them
This the object of the bl-the right to bring
them was not dsputed-the right to take them
away should not be denied, but on the contrary,
every facility should be afforded by the law for
them to do so.
He said in reply to the gentleman who had pre-
ceded him MIR Tallmadge) that neither he nor
any other gentleman can show an instance where
negro had been sought to be reclaimed illegally:
in every state or territory where there had been q
case for the recovery of fugitive such fugitive was
the property Of the parties claiming him He was
sure from the character Of mon owning slaves in
this state, that there would never be an instance
here where u negro would be sought to be reclaimed
who was not the property Of the claimant.
Mr.. Tallnladge said he was willing to vote TOR a
bill that would allow claimants to remove those
slaves brought here before the adoption of our con-
stituton; but he thought that this bill had reference
only to this class in the title.
MIR. James said he should vote for the bill as nj,
act of justice to the owners Of slaves in this state
but be must differ with the gentleman from Mari
posa MIR. Ierbert) far as his argument applied
to territories He Mr.. J) claimed that n Slave
could not be held except by virtue of law; slavery
could exist only under enactments, and, if there
were no provision in constitution prohibiting
slavery, it would still require law before slave
could be held to service in this state There never
was law in any territory by which slaves could be
held to servce and territories had not the power to
nos
they in this state under the 18th section of
the constitution.
Mr.. Hubbard must differ from sonic Of the ecntlea
men who had preceded him he was from a slave
state and he thanked God for it. He had the feel
ings and preiudices of man born and educated irt
slave state but he had taken an oath to support
the constitution as it is. No fine spun philanthropy,
no conscientious feelings Of the preudces of educa-
ton would induce him to violate the oath he had
taken. The bill in his estimation violated the spirit
Of the constitution, and he would obey the constitu-
ton and vote against it. He continued-all Of I'd
who formerly lived in the south, know that it was
heralded for months and months there-the news
would not be allowed 10 bring our slaves to this
state--we thought it hard that we could not take
our slaves, but acknowledged that the people of
California had the right to make their own law ON
this subject This Mr.. Speaker, is state rights |
believe in state ghts it was the doctrine of Jack
son, who believe is now in heaven for having We
toed the u. S. bank. | am strict cOnstructionst
believe in strict construction of our constitution on
this and all other subjects. This bill believe is in
direct opposition to the constitutional believe it is
an iniqutous measure. If the people of this state
say they want slavery am willing, but want it
done open and above board this bill is kind of going
behind the curtain it lisa deception to be practiced
on the people. shall continue to sustain the oon-
stitution | sworo to support when came hero.
shall vote against the bill in every shape it may
! come up.
The bill was then passed by the following vote
/ Ayes-Aylctt, Bennett Bowie Bradford Carr,
Carrillo, Cornwall, Dawley, Gordon, Griffith, Ha-
gans, Henry, Herbert Horr Houghtaling, Hunter,
| James, Lindsey, Vaudeville, Myres, MCGEE, Nc
Kenney Noel ONeil Rowan, Springer, Stemmons,
Sweetland, Tiyy Van Cleft, Watkins, Whitman,
Mr.. Speakcr-33
Nays-Anderson, Ashley, Ballou Boatwck, Bur-
ton Ever, Fairfield Gilbert, llollister Hoyt, Hubs
bard Kellogg, Kohl, Letcher, Mcdonald, Ring, Ste
venson, Sweasey, Tallmadge, Warmcastle, Whipple.
-2l.
Mr. Springer said he had voted aye for the puri
pose of moving a reconsideration and he gave
notice that he would move reconsideration on
Monday
Mr. 'ralmadge moved to amend the bill so as to
read 'An act concerning fugitive slaves escaped to
this State prior to her admission into the Unionn
Lost.
On Monday, Mr.. Springer moved reconsderas
ton, which was lost.
III. D.I- Il