New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-11-09

matter wa. left by the bred Scott dee sioo. lney
bed decided that begroes were property JUST ,ne
same ss horse or any o-her property. II properly;
the owners should have perfect and untramme'eo
ri BIT to take j: where they pessed and sell II "nen
they pleased. II was mercy making II properly,
The speaker olladed ironically to the l-oihrrh'"i
line"
Mr.. jenkins spoke. lie, TOO, took the ground
that he decision Of the bred scott case settled tne
Slavery question. Men could take their slaves
everyUhere-couN sell them ererylohen. Ihit was
the true spirit and meaning OF il, and i would soon
receive its practical force. II was therefore tne
Black Republicans had hOwled over that DECISION
Two members Of that Court were Back R-Puel-
cans, and, Of course, decided against me DINERS;
But the majority Of the Court were good National
Democrats, and htr,f fore decided as they did.
jenkins spoke di.paraeiDgy Of Squstter Sever
eighty. He had always thousbtits humbug.
MI Moore, Chairman Of the COMM tee, did not
object to the amendment of Boiling on tue prlnciPe
that it was turplusage, for the very reasoos gwen
by the speaker. The bred Scott deci'ion had set
tied it irrevOcably, and 1t were better no. 10 IT.
legislate such a subject.
Here Mr.. Boiling rose and said
al would ask the gentleman from Georgia. beg
bis pardon from LAsvenworth-if there s sucn pro-
ysion by law in Georgia y
Mr.. Moore said there was. There were just sucn
provisions in Georeis and it vas to prevent mp0sl-
On an eloquent burst about State Rights. A State
bad the right to exclude rotten beef, wooden nut
neps or other nuisance, t. establish Slavery, As
ttey pleased Bavng established State Rights thus,
the sneaker came back to the bred Scott decision.
That decision was q mandate, decree, final de-
csion, that had gone firth to the country and was
irreyocable. The Convention had no power to In
terfere with the terms Of that decision. Ii had gone
forth, snd no State authority can touch l..
H. I Ia at
amendment. The law of Georgia was merely q
means by which the State could speculate upon the
poor. The rich had all the Legr0-tradlng. They
could sell out their negroes at an advance OF 80 per
cent and then 60 cut to another State, buy lot OF
negroes, bring them back, keep them month or
two, and then sell them. He knew how it was
He had been in Georgia when the law was passed
He had FIVE negroes that he could not sell before for
81, 600. and alter it he had sold them for 81 800
apiece. That was how il worked. The. speaker
thought the bred Scott decision had put matters on
their true ground Before that decision, slaves had
been regarded as PR perty, it was true but 1t was
sort of property only. They were, by general opln-
ion and State, laws allowed to have some sort OF
rghts but that decision had taken the broad ground
that slaves were property--neither less nor more.
This was the true ground for the South. This was
the right position they had got at last and no South
ern man should be found calling it in question. 1t
was enough for the Republicans to do that. He was
for the amendment.
Mr. Dsnforth rose to sustain the report. No man
could call in question the fact that he one of the
strongest Pro. Slavery men in the Convention. He
did not liz to differ with his friend from Douglas,
Mr.. Boiling. If the latter would modify his amend
ment in some shape, as not to mar the report be
would like to sustain it. This report had been
framed from the regulations Of Georgia, the most
ultra Of the Southern States.
MIR. Boiling again spoke, and urged the question
again on the around that his amendment was 10 the
best accordance with the bred Scott decision. He
said this was the question which divided the parties
in the country really. This was the true issue.
Mr. jenkins again rose and began to catechlse Mr..
Moore on State Rights. Mr.. jenkins wanted
preamble put either to this clause or to the Const.
tuition itself recognizing in explicit terms the bred
Scott decision. He believed 1T was expected or
u.s. He thought the bred Scott decision was the
true Southern ground. Even in that report, he saw
something that seemed to initiate in some sense
against the complete property Of the slave. 1t
was the provisions that the slaves must be treated
10 certain Manner and looking indirectly, to some
extent 10 some kind of idea Of their rights. He
did not wish to impugn the motives OF the gentlemen
son the Ctmmtte for he knew they were the most
ultra Pro-Savery men in this Convention, and They
had modelled their report from the most ultra Slave
States in the COnederacy; but even here it appeared
that II was in some sense behind the bred Scott de-
cisios 1t was for this reason that he wanted to in
corporate the bred Scott decision into the COnsttu
ton az the true position of Southern men.
Mr. Wells spoke in favor of the report, but threw
no new light on the subject.
Mr. Stewart of Douglas made speech, chiefly
yindcatiOn of his own position. He was as true to
Pre-. Slavery interests as any man. tie was born IN
a Slave State, had never been more than three days
in Free State. An old Whig he acted with the
Democracy for the sake Officiating down the Repub-
licsns. But he did not take az extreme views as
some of those Who had spoken. He did not take
the positiop, under the bred Scott decision, that
Stale had not the right to make local regulations for
the regulation of the Slavery question TO suit them
selves. The States had such rights. Besides, he
favored the report Just twas. He felt that it
WAS means Of preserving the community against
imposition. II was also means of preserving the
community against negro-traders. q class who en-
psped in ,uCh traffic until their cOnsciences were
). sred as with hot irOn This clause was some
security to humanity He was as true to true
Southern rights as any man. but wanted to have
proper safeguards
Mr.. Henderson was pleased with the report as it
bad been presented. From the day Of his arriv. in
the Territory, he had been thorough PrO-Slavery
mar-had never swerved. Was opposed to ali
amendments to the report; was opposed 10 the in
corporation of the bred Scott decision in mere
exblict termr Thinks that this report incorporates
its provisions fully and explicitly in terms and that
il enough Henderson does not want to have a
traffic in slaves; is opposed To trade in hum an
flesh (c,es Of "Oh yes.') Who would associate
With a negro trader Mr. Walker asked him ii he
would allow men to bring in their slaves Mr..
Henderson," Yes, of course; but not to trade in
them" :" You would not trade in them ," "No,
Mr.. Walker" Mr.. Hendersons speech was an
appeal against the internal slave trade really, and
made some little sentatiOl
Randolph, Of Atchison, said be would awe those