The Empire County argus., 1854-04-01


Dawley, Ever, Fairfield, Griffith, Hagans Henry,
Herbert, Hollister IIorr, Houghtaling, Hubbard,
Hubert, Hunt Hunter, James, Kellogg Koll, Lindsey,
Nlandeville Myres, Mcdonald, McGee, McKenney,
Nichols, Noel, ONeil, Rowan, Springer, Stemmons,
Stevenson, Swcetland, Tallmadge, Tivy, Van Cleft,
Warmcostle, Watkins Whitman, Mr. Speaker--40.
MIR. Letcher moved to strike from the bill all ex-
cept that which relates to fugitves from labor.
MIR. ONeil asked the gentleman from Santa Clara
Mr.. Letchcr to explain the object of his amend
ment.
Mr.. Letcher said that the effect of the adoption
of his amendment would be to make the bill accord
with the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law of the
United States. and to the constitutional OBJ
lection to the passage of the bin in its present form
He said he had another object which was by urging
the adoption of this amendment to define his posi-
ton the subject, and to relieve himself from the
possible imputation of opposition to that law he
should cast his vote against this bill with its present
provisions.
On the adoption of the amendment proposed by
Mr. Letcher, division called for and the vote
stood Ayes, 10; Nays, 81. No quorum voting.
The Speaker put the question again. Ayes IL
Noes, q. No quorum
The question was then put a third time Ayes II
Noes 81. So the amendment was lost
Mr.. James moved to amend the first section, by
striking out the words 'or territory.n
Mr.. James said he made this motion because no
law in the territories could exist on this subject
Slavery could only exist by virtue of enactment 1t
the act of the sovereign state to egose slavery.
This had been proved by some of the ablest men in
the United States among others, Mr.. Calhoun
Prior to the formation of our constitution the owners
of slaves could bring them to this territory, but at
that time they could not hold them as slaves with
out law to that effect, and California as territory
could not pass q law upon the subject But the
slaves had been brought here, and he was willing
that persons claiming them should have ample time
to remove them. He should therefore vote for the
bill
upon its passage.
Mr.. Ashley said that the Constitution of this
state~said Neither slavery nor involuntary scrv-
tude, unless for the punishment Of crimes, shall
ever be tolerated in this state' He was willing
and anxious to see division of this state he be-
lieved it the desire of the people he represent
ed and when divided he would offer no serious OBJ
cctions to the introduction of slaves in the south
ern portion he did not know but he would buy
one himself if he had the means. But he would
not vote for this bill because he thought it uncon-
stituional. People under this law could continue
owning slaves in this state as long they pleased
expecting to have the law extended from year to
year lie had no desire to see the intention of the
Constitution defeated the Constitution prohibited
slavery in this state while this bill extended it for
another year he thought with the gentleman from
Klamath, (NIr. Whipple) that sufficient time had
been allowed for the owners Of slaves to remove
them, without extending the time for year longer.
Mr.. Mckenney could see no valid reason against
the passage of the bill it was but continuing law
already on our statute-that would expire by limi-
tation in few days-for another year. He was
fearful the gentleman who preceded him desired to
cvade vote upon any bill on this subject and
while he would not compare him to any thing in the
anecdote he about to relate, yet his course
brought it forcibly to his mind. There was a man
night by noise among his hogs. He thought
every thing not right, and went out to sec the
of the trouble when he got to the enclosure,
he found neighbor killing one Of his hogs. "Why,
neighbor," said he, what are you killing my hog
for" and the man answered, "l'll kill your hog or
any other mans hog, here or elsewhere, that cries
boo at me-" He thought this bill, or any other
bill on the same subject, would be boo to the
gentleman, and he would kill it here or wherever he
met it, Slaves had been brought here under the
right which the whole people of the United States
had to remove with their property into territory;
this territory had since become stlte with con-
sttution prohibiting slavery-froln the peculiar
circumstances incidental to our state these slaves,
in large number Of instances had escaped from
the persons owning them, and up to this time they
had been unable to recover but few OF them. The
people owning these slaves ask and have the right
to demand justice at our hands to remove their
property they must have further time their prop
erty VIII Ue l0st TO them ne was WILING 10 vote Tor
the bill because it give them further time.
Mr. Tallmadge said he could not allow this bill
to pass without expressing his dissent to its provs-
ions. He shrank from no responsibility on this or
any other question. He was opposed to the bill and
should vote against it, because he believed it to be
violation OF the spirit and meaning of the consti-
tuition, if not Of its letter. IKe eighteenth section
of article first of our constitution, declares that
neither slavery involuntary servitude, unless
for the punishment of crimes shall ever be tolerat-
ed in this state" Now, he said, while bound by
my oath to uphold every feature of this constitution
in its literal meaning, letter and spirit, yet
antl-slayery propagandist, but can wish with the
patriot John MITCHELL that if lived in Alabama, |
owned a plantation and that plantation well stocked
with negroes | hate and abhor abolition in every
form, feature and color, but am bound by my oath
to support the constitution of this state- am sol
emny sworn to do this. 1t says that slavery shall
not be tolerated here; yet the object of this bill
understand it, is to extend thefnstituton Of sla-
very for another year in defiance of this clause of
the Constitution, The title Of this law shows that
the object intended by those who framed it, to
give the owners Of slaves brought here before the
admission Of California the right to remove them,
and the apparent object Of the trainers of this bill,
is to extend the time for removal for another year.
But the first section of the bill is inconsistent with
its title, and provides for the reclamation Of slaves
brought here since the admission of this state into
the Union. 1t says:
''Section |. When person held to labor in any
state or territory in the United States under the
laws thereof shall escape into this state, the person
t. whom such labor service maybe due, his
arent or attornev is hereby empowered to seize or