The daily union., 1856-04-08

Were those from whom my constituents originally pur-
ehased their slave property engaged in lawful adein
trade recognised lawful by the universal law of ma
onsf This question before the courts OF Great Brit
ain In the year 1917 French vessel called the Le Louis
was engaged In the African slave trade and captured
by British cruiser France at that time not having
tered into treaty spuatons aboishng that trade, the
sci was taken into British port and condemned by the
vice-admiray court lawful prize for being engaged ia
trade forbidden by the universal law nations and there
fore criminal b. that law From the Judgment of the vice.
admiralty court an appeal was taken TO the high court OF
admiralty OF Great Britain The appellate court reversed
the Judgment OF the viceadmiralty court and held that the
African slave trade unlawful by the universal law
of nations aud not criminal by that law which recog
nsed property IN African slaves. The Judgment of the
high court Of admiralty delivered hy Lord Stowell
better known Sir William Scott and beg leave TO read
to the House portion Of that Judgment Speaking OF the
African slave trade, the learned judge said
"e not be misunderstood or msrepresented as pro-
essed apoogs for this practice when state facts which
man can denyha personal slavery arising Out Of ioreihe
captivity eoeya with the earliest periods OF the history OF
mankindbat it found existing (and, appears, with
out dverson) n the earliest and most authentic rec
ods of the human racethnt recognised by the codes
OF the most polished nations of anquy-that under the
light of Christianity itself the possession of persons 8" ae
character Of property aud secured such by all the profcc
ttons Of aha solemn treaties have been framed and ma
tona monopoes eagerly sought to facilitate and extend the
commerce in this asserted propery-and all this, with all
the sanctions OF law, public aud m municipal, and without
any opposition except the protests OF few private moral
st little heard and less attended to in every country till
within these very few years in this particular country What
the doctrine Of courts of the law of nations relatively
to those nations which adhere the practice of carrying
the African trader Why, that their practice TO be
respected that their slaves if taken to be restored to
them and if not taken under innocent mistake, to be re-
stored with costs and damages All this surely upon the
ground that such conduct the part any State no de-
parture from the law of nations The notorious fact B that
in the domnions of this country, and others, many thou
sands OF persons are held as legal property they aRd their
posterty upon other original title than that which
instances attended with all the aggravatons that apperan
to the long continuation of crime if crime it be- and yet
protected by aw m oil the securities that can be gcen TO prop
ery !" its respected fOr""2d DOdso"s Admiralty Re
port, pp 25o-1'2.
In Madrazo Willis 9TH Eng. Com Law Reports, page
3l5 the doctrine is fully recognised by the Court of
Kings Bench. Bayly j. in delivering his judgment in
that case, said speaking Of the African slave trade:
tfs that if this trade contrary to the law of
nations, foreigner could not maintain this action But it
and Spanard be considered bound by
the acts of the British legislature prohibiting this trade it
would be unjust to deprive him of remedy for the wrong
which be has sustained. He had legal property in the
slaves of which he has by the defendants act been de-
prived."
Best j., after citing several authorities says
alt is clear from these authorities that the slave trade is
not condemned by the general law OF nations
In the ease of the Antelope reported in 10th Wheaton,
page 2 Chief Justice Marshall speaking Of the legality
! OF the slave trade, says:
Both Europe and America embarked in it, and for nearly
two centuries without opposition and with
urs could not that practice thus sup
ported Illegal and that those engaged in might be
shed either pei sonay by deprtUatton of propcrty
But have still higher authority in favor of the legality
of the African slave trade and that the federal consu-
ton The African slave trade not only recognised as
lawful by that constitution, bnt ii expressly spuaies for
its continuance for twenty years and provides that each
slave who might be imported into the States should be
taxed not exceeding ten dollars per head.
Mr.. GIDDINGS. win the gentleman permit me to pro-
pound n question 10 him2
! Mr.. WARNER. Oh yes, certainly.
Mr.. GIDDNGS I would inquire whether the gentle
man holds that those American Christians who cap
urcd and held slavery and who transferred from
owner owner by the Agerne in the latter part of the
last and the first part of the present century, were prop
! erty2
\ Mr. WARNER. am not discussing the question OF Al
gerne slavery; discussing the question Of African
slavery, recognised by The constitution.
| Mr. GIDDINGS. Does the gentleman acknowledge that
those Americans captured and held by the Agerne were
property pvpp A. 80, r0o,0 .rv .nc, .au;..io,
nor necessary that should do for the purposes of
Mr.. GIDDINGS. That ia what want an answer to.
i Mr. WARNER. have not referred TO the Americans
who were captured by the Algerinea. am discussing
the question Of African slavery as it exists in the United
States
Mr GIDDINGs Africans can be held by Americans as
slave property.
\ Mr. Warner. They were recognised as property by
the universal law of nations before and nj the time OF
the adoption Of the constitution, and now held nj
property under the sanction and guarantee OF that nsru
ment
:, Mr. GGDDINGS Are Americans property when held by
Mr. WARNER l do not recOllect at this time such
state of things the gentleman from Ohio supposes.
!, Mr.. GlDDlNGS. / commend the gentleman 10 the his
tory Of the country.
H Mr. WARNER. will not allow the gentleman TO maxi
case for me TO discuss discussing questions which
arise under the laws aud constitution Of hs country and
ia return for his admonitory counsel would heartily
mend him the constitution OF his country, and the ob
cations which II imposes.
Mr. Chairman, when interrupted by the gentleman from
Ohio endeavoring to demonstrate that property In
slaves recognised by the universal law Of nations be
fore and long since the adoption Of the constitution and
that my constituents originally purchased their SLAVE
property from those who engaged In aWful trade
and recognised be lawful by the universal law ofnaons
and that their title TO their slave property based upon
that universal law of nations ii existed before and
the time Of the adoption Of the constitution and not upon
any positive law Of the State
Ignorant sir that long since The adoption Of the
constitution and long since the title OF my constituents
their slave property accrued the United States and mos
Of the independent nations Of the world have entered ntC
treaty spuations, aboshing the African alaye trade
but those treaty spuatons not intended, and could
not the effect divest rights slave property which
had accrued and vested prior thereto and which were rec
ognised by the constitution lawful and valid ftei
the revolution all know, the colonies became inde
pendent States The State Of Georgia had as perfect and
complete jurisdiction all persons and property within
her territorial limits any sovereign State or nation or
face Of the EARTH she owed allegiance to no other powe
government The commission ssned by that State to bel
delegates frame the federal constitution states her rn
character that time That commission Is headed Will
these memorable words The State OF Georgia by thu
grace of God free sorereigR and Independent"
Now sir let inquire what rights the people OF that In
dependent State had relation to taking their slave property
into any foreign territory and to have that prorey pro
ected there by the universal law Of nations before and
: the time Of the adoption of the constitution
maintain sir, that citizen Of Georgia bad according
to the fundamental principles OF international law the
doubted right TO take his slave property into any othe
foreign territory where the introduction Of such property
not prohibited BY some positive law operative n ha