The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-11-26

a
boundaries and other physical and permanent distinctions
which happen 10 coincide with them, what Is 70 control
those great repulsiye from awful SHOCKS against
each other n
will mention one other letter written by Mr.. Madison
to Mr. Monroe in 1920 the very midst Of the Missouri
contest and the very subject Of the power OF congress
in relation TO this territorial restriction This right was
claimed under the clause in the constitution which says
The Congress shall have power TO dispose OF ana make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory
other property belonging TO the United STATES Ter
rtsry is In this sentence clearly recognised property
No that has any pretensions to common sense can
make anything else out OF il. This word "other ID
great stumbling block to all who attempt TO manufacture
this clause into right given to Congress TO interdicl
slavery from the Territories establish slavery or any
Other social institution within the limits Of any Territory
lift were for this word other" they might perhaps
twist this to little different pnr-
pose but ii stands it represents property and moth
ing else may include the public lands buildings ships
dock yards anything that comes under the head OF
property but ask has it any application TO persons
These Fremoners have always souy contended that per
were not property and hope they VIII SUCK 70 II ~
this Territory property belonging TO the
United States" Have the United States property in per-
sons2 Ii not then not look 10 this clause OF the
constitution comforting the power on Congress TO ex
cude persons of my description from the Territories TO
say whether they shall be bond or free But must hasten
give the last quotation from Mr. Madison and then pass
In relation 10 the clause respecting the territory OF
other property, Mr.. Madison says:
"On side it naturally that the right being
given from the necessity of the and in suspension OF
the great principle of segovernment ought not TO be ex
tended further continued longer than the occasion
might fairly require
On the question whether the territorial restriction be an
assumption of Legitimate power misuse Of Legitimate
power he says: have always leaned TO the belief that
the restriction was not within the true scope OF the con-
stitution."
So much for the deliberate opinion of Mr. Madison when
the power of nterdcng slavery in the Territories was
first seriously claimed in Congress- and when the agitation
OF the Missouri question in full blast and yet this ex
FOUNDER OF the constitution now called into the support
of that party who, though opposed to the restriction be-
did not extend the entire United States and
ceased their opposition during the whole term of s
continuance denounce its repeal breach OF sa-
cred compact And under what pretence is Mr. Madison
claimed in support of that pary2 Simply because 1t IS
said he suggested the insertion of the words persons in
stead of the word aps" wherever the latter might have
occurred in the constitution Under this pretext and
nothing else, that could learn he is claimed as
Fremouter! wonder they don't claim him rs supporter
of the Hartford Convention.
As to Mr. Jeferson's alleged connexon with this cele
braed ordinance Of ST. it is well known that be was alb
sent from the country as minister to France from the
spring of 1885 to the close of the year 1885, and of course
could have had no agency in the passage of any statute
ordinance passed in the old Congress of that date The
circumstance that probably connected his name with this
matter gather from his biography, written by Professor
| Tucker, of the University OF Virginia
Tue delegates from Virginia the lst of March, 1884
rendered to Congress deed of cesson of the territory
northwest OF the Ohio in pursuance OF authority vest
ed them by the Legislature OF that State on the goth OF
Ocioter preceding An unconditional acceptance being
agreed TO- the deed was duly executed by the delegates
Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy Arthur Lee, and James
Monroe and its provisions became articles for the general
of the States that to be formed out OF
that territory. There this time l784) PROPOSE
ton interdict slavery in that territory after the year
1890 which Mr. Jefferson suggested was supposed TO
favor but as majority of the States 1.-THE old Congress
in such cases voted by Saes did support the prop
oson it was rejected-sx States only OF the thirteen
voting in the affirmative. Thus this slavery clause was
rejected in 1884 and this is the last that hear Of Mr.
Jerrsous having anything TO do with it. 1t appears,
however that in 1885 similar provision introduced
by Rufus King of New York but it does not appear to
have been passed until renewed by Nathan Dame OF Mas
sachusetts 1887. 1t is not perhaps inappropriate here
remark that the two lasnamed gentlemen were at no
time considered coad Tutors with Mr. Jefferson in politics.
and though parties at that time were not so distinctly
formed they after the adoption OF the consutu-
ton yet there radical difference in their ideas OF
But Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison seldom differed and
we have seen that the latter had hesitation in deciding
that the slavery clause in the ordinance of 81 proceeded
from body acting with the best Intentions but under
charter which contained shadow Of the authority
csed 1t is not an unfair inference TO suppose that Mr.
Jefferson took similar view Of the matter in relation 10
the authority of the old Congress- and that his action
the subject 1884 may be accounted for concatory
measure lin connerion with this deed Of Cesson by yir-
gina) rendered Of salvo to the North which had
become little the slave question: and intended as
of the part of the South 10 show and
vince them that they harbored disposition to extend the
institution of slavery to their annoyance into regions
manesty adapted to the employment OF colored labor
aud hence though not supposed by him to be OF any legal
avail would at least be taken gdiUcr Of any claim
desire part of the South to appropriate any portion
Of IL TO their special benefit
the desire long entertained by him promote the emanci
patton OF slaves early programme could be de-
Used that might render ii practicable But these ideas
were az all times entertained by him in conneXion with
that OF exparaipn for with all his phauhropy-and he
certainly possessed large share Of the milk Of human
kudnesshs notions OF freedom TO the slave all
times coupled with the express condition Of their removal
beyond the reach OF mixture with the Caucasian white
race He contsmp aed placing them side by side
with man Of permitting them to exercise The
rights OF citizenship in this repGhhc These ideas Of
emancipation entertained by the colonial government
Virginia long before the revolution. AS early 1882
the Legislature Of that State thought proper discourage
the further importation Of slaves by tax each slave
imported but in doing fearing the commercial jeal
ouSy of old England who viewed the traffic as an import
branch Of commercial wealth. in order to insure the
sanction of the Grown, IL provided that the duty
should be paid by the purchaser This tax at first five
per the value Of the slave, but In l740 in
creased to ten per cent the value OF the slave 1t here
that Francis p Blair in his letter to the
back-repubhcan association Washington in December
1855 in attempting to connect Mr.. Jefferson more init
maeiy with this ordinance Of ST. introduces clause In
Mr. Jeersons original draugh OF The Declaration Of In
dependence viz that He the King OF Great Brittany has
prosuuted bis negative for suppressing every legislative
attempt prohibit restrain this execrable commerce.
The FIRST legislative attempt TO restrain the progress
this ischief which the King of Great Britain visited upon
this country Mr. JefIersons resolution excluding
slavery from The territory Of the United States in 1854
the that Of Rlfus King In 1885 the third that
of Nathan Dame In 7s7--a receiving he vote Of two
thirds the States Of the coniedersGy and the last he unnn
imous vote"
Here Mr. Blair has committed two very important errors
bunders Thers IT, that Mr. Jefersons resolution in
1884 not she frs attempt to restrain the progress of
the mischief and the other s that Mr. Jeaersons resou
ton in 1884, Rufus Kings in 1875, and Nathan Danes in
1884, did not all receive the vote OF twothirds Of the