Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-02-02

Transit OF slaves Through Pennsylvania.
The majority of the Judiciary committee of
the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania
submitted somewhat detailed report, few
days since, with reference to the right of ctr
zens of slaveholding States to transit through
Pennsylvania with their slave property and
arguing that such right is abundantly secured
both by the law of nations and the federal con-
stitution, and that no local Legislative enact
ment can impair or disturb rights SO clearly
founded injustice and comfy. The subject is
one of importance, and the argument of the
majority so lucid that we copy its material
points. They say;
Before the adoption of the Constitution Of
1887, slaves were held and recognized as prop
erty in all the States of the confederation save
one. Each State was a sovereign and indie
pendent Republic; and that comfy which is
recognized by the law of nations, as existing
between friendly powers, extended to and pre-
vailed among the several States, and the right
of transit with their then undisputed proper
ty was not contravened.
Upon the adoption of the Constitution, prop
cry III oldNco WdS pOolllScly IcCOSulZeu, duu Co
pecially protected by the provisions for the
rendition of fugitives from labor. Slaves were
recognized as legitimate property at that time;
not only by the Federal Constitution, but also
by the laws of the several States of the Union,
including Pennsylvania.
Having adopted the Constitution, and thus
plighted her honor to the faithful observance
Of all its covenants, she will not now dishonor
herself by denying her blood or violating any
of its obligations. The law of nations gives
the right of peaceable and orderly transit to
both persons and property, and that right IS
ratified and confirmed by the Constitution, more
especially in the clause which reserves to Con.
gress the exclusive right to regulate commerce
among the States This reserved power is
construed by the courts to include intercourse
and the transportation Of property, and most
clearly excluded the right of individual States
to prohibit intercourse and the transportation
OF property. The question Of property, of
course, referred to the locus an quo of the al
lodged owner. The Constitution declares that
:" the citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several States;' and will any Pennsylvania
deny his own right to pass, with his property,
over and along the public hig hways Of Virginia,
and if he will not, why are the rights of the
NitiLcHS VI VIC lWO otdtoS HOt IeSlpIOCdl!
: Your committee deny that Pennsylvania has
passed an unconstitutional law, interdicting
peaceable and friendly intercourse between the
citizens of the several sister States of this
Union, and refusing to permit their property to
accompany their person. The act of the Penn
sylvania Legislature of lst March, 1880, as
explained by the act of goth March, 1888, re-
cognized the prior right of persons, with their
domestic slaves, to pass and sojourn in this
State for six months; and does not attempt to
disturb that right but declares all slaves to be
free who are retained by inhabitants, residents,
and intended residents Thus we have clear
distinction made and kept up between the
rights, in the respects of passers through and
sojourners, and inhabitants, residents, and in
tended residents
Then comes the "act" Of the Sd Of March,
l847 which repeats so much of the "act' of
1880 as authorizes the masters or owners of
slaves to bring and retain such slaves within
this Commonwealth for the period of six months
in involuntary servitude, or for any period of
time whatever We believe that this act
hugs the wind closely, and sails between the
rock of the Constitution on the one hand, and
the whirlpool of its open Reputation on the
other. 1t does not purport to take away from
their masters the domestic slaves attending
uPOh lHcli pclSOuo lLeJ pass tuTOuRu lHlS
State; it does not prohibit the bringing of them
within it it only forbids the bringing and re-
tanning Of them here. 1t may effect the slaves
Of sojourners, but it cannot reach persons or
slares an transit, because they are not both
brought and retained within this Common
wealth. An "act of assembly" will not be
construed to be unconstitutional by implica-
ton, nor when a constitutional construction can
be fairly given to it.
The Commonwealth has very properly abol
ished slavery within her own bounds, but be-
yond them she has no jurisdiction over it.
Our Southern brethren are protected in their
property by stronger bulwark than any act
of the Pennsylvania Legislature and your
committee cannot consent to disgrace our
Commonwealth in the eyes of the civilized
world, by assuming to give that which she has
neither the power or inclination to take away.
The committee, therefore, recommend thatthey
all be discharged from the further considera-
ton Of the subject.
The minority, consisting Of three members,
among whom is the Hon. E. Joy Morris, do not
yield assent to this reasoning of the majority,
but hold that slavery is exclusively local in
stitution-not recognized by the law of nature,
the common law, or the civil law.