Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-05-10

Adams, who, Imagine, will scarcely be repudi
ated as authority upon any question touching
the abolition of slavery by gentlemen identified
either with the republican or abolitionist party.
He tells us this not only on the faith of the ne
gotiations between the two governments, but
he proves that our government was right, not
merely by citations of distinguished authors on
national law, but by the abjudications of the
courts of justice of the highest class abroad
and at home. That has been declared to be
the law by the high court of Admiralty of
Great Britain; that has been declared to be the
law by the court of Kings Bench of Great Bri-
tain; and, finally, in our own Supreme Court
that sits below US, it was held (the venerable
Chief Justice Marshall delivering the opinion Of
the COURT that slavery was not an outlaw under
the law of nations; that slavery was protected
by the law of nations; nay sir, that the horrible
slave trade which we have prescribed, which
| we have denounced as piracy in our statutes, is
protected by the law of nations. l refer the
senator, if he desires to see where the author
ties are collected on the subject, to Wheaton's
! Treaties on the Law of Nations pages 632 and
| following. | will, however, request our Secre
tary to read passage from the decision of
Chief Justice Marshall, which is copied on the
635th page.
The Secretary read the extract, as follows:
L
and war conferred rights in which all had ac-
quiesced. Among the most enlightened nations
of antiquity one of these rights was that the
victor might enslave the vanquished. That
which was the usage of all nations could not be
pronounced repugnant to the law of nations,
which was certainly to be tried by the test Of
general usage. That which had received the
assent Of all must be the law of all.
"Slavery then, had its origin in force; but as
the world had agreed that it was the legitimate
| result Of force, the state Of things which was
| thus produced by general consent could not be
| pronounced unlawful.
| Throughout Christendom this harsh rule
had been exploded, and war was no longer con-
! sidered as giving right to enslave capives.
| But this triumph had not been universal. The
parties to the modern law of nations do not
propagate their principles by force; and Africa
had not yet adopted them. Throughout the
whole extent of that immense continent, 80 far
as we know its history, it is still the law of ma
tons that prisoners are slaves. The question,
then, was could those who had renounced this
law be permitted to participate in its effects by
purchasing the human beings who are its vic
Tins?
"Whalever might be the answer of o moralist
to this question, jurist must search for its le-
gal solution in those principles which are sane
toned by the usages, the national acts, and the
general assent of that portion of the world of
which he considers himself part, and to whose
law the appeal is made. If we resort :, this
standard as the test of international law the
question must be considered as decided in fa-
vor of the legality of the trade. Both Europe
and America embarked in it, and for nearly
two centuries it was carried on without opposi.
stion and without censure. A jurist could not
al. tL,,p ,nI
and that those engaged in it might be punished
either personally or by deprivation of property"
Mr.. BENJAMIN. Now, Mr.. President, l op-
pose the authority of Chief Justice Marshall, on
question ofinternatonal law, TO the dictuna Of
the honorable senator from New York.
Ii is a matter which excites the deepest in
terest in our minds to inquire what are the
motives of this constant, cruel, unrelenting
warfare which is waged by some of the people
Of the North against the rights of the South.
What interest have they in the question
whether or not slave shall be moved from
Louisiana or South Carolina to Kansas? Regard
for the slave is not the motive; that is clear.
That was once used as a pretext, but having
lost its force it is now abandoned from very
shame. No man proposes oincrease the num-
Der of slaves. No man can pretend for an
instant that it is hurtful to the slave that his
master should have the choice of leaving one
location, where bis fortunes are adverse, and
seeking another where they may be favorable,
because on that may depend the physical COM
fort and ample supply OF necessaries for the
slave. The motive is not the interest Of the
slave at all.
Why, sir, what better proof do we want than
this fact? This very faction-this very Kansas
faction, Of which certain gentlemen on this floor
are the exclusive supporters and friends, and
about which they are now making all the noise
that is made in the country-has done, and is
now doing avowedly, everything within its
power TO prevent the freedom of slaves. What
has it in its power? The only thing that it
can possibly do towards securing the freedom
Of the slave is to offer refuge for the emanci-
pated slave. Everybody knows that one Of the
chief obstacles to be overcome in the South
towards the emancipation of the slave is to find
a refuge for him. Here is a virgin soil, and
there are tens of thousands of acres Of ground
for every individual who can be found within
its limits. 1t wants nothing so much as popu-
lation. The South has slaves, and many
Southern shareholders have slaves that they are
ready to emancipate; but the Southern laws
think il dangerous that the two classes Of
colored population should be kept together.
Yet this very Kansas faction, which could offer
a refuge to those liberated and emancipated
slaves, uses the very hrst instant when 1t can
evince its intentions by the passage Of an en-
actment, TO pass constitutional provision pro-
hibiting liberated slaves from entering within
its borders. Conduct like this is ample for the
purpose Of evincing the motives which actuate
the minds Of men who are guilty Of it. / say,
once more, on the question OF the interest which
the North has on this subject, that it is not re-
gard TO the slave. That is proven; no man
can deny il. Now that that pretext has been
abandoned, what are the others?
Sir, If this we're not a very grave subject, IT
would be amusing to listen to the frivolous pre-
texts which have been put forth by Senator'S on
this floor to justify their conduct towards the
South. The honorable Senator from New
Hampshire Mr.. Hale has a tender conscience,
and is very much exercised for fear that the
people who will live one hundred years hence
in Kansas may look back and find that he did
not help to keep slavery out, and will curse his
memoryl There is one motive. The honora-
BILE Senator who sits alongside of him, the
i q NJ H.