The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-01-03

ity of che States There interference oil one oas
with affairs Of another of the federal government
with those OF any OF the States In 1880 have the first
passed for the gradual abolition OF slavery IL was
passed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania IN stroud on
Slavery The whole question fully discussed The day al
forwards the people OF Massachusetts, without precon
certed action os TO time abolished slavery by Indirect
and IL would SEEM unintended measure. They had no
idea Of doing il when they did it. says the historian Stroud
They adopted constitution to which they prefxed bill
of rights which, whilst 1t formally required "the subject
70 contribute the support of teachers Of sec other than
his own deprived the Subject" Of bis proper estate
by accidental abolition of slavery Speaking OF this un-
reflective act of the convention OF Massachusetts STROUD
holds the following language;
he abolition Of slavery in Nassachuset takes its
day the of the abolition law of Pern
specific act Of the legislature resulted consequences
OF the primary article in the tH Of rights prexed 70 the
ssssitaon OF the Statethe language Of which article E
sA men are born equal and have certain nstp.
essential and unaenabe rights among which may DE reck
AI Of and Protecting
ery in fine, that Of seeking and obang their safety and
happiness"
And sir it was upon geeralties of this kind adudged
into binding decision by of her courts (Winchenden
Hatfield Massachusetts Reports, p l29 that Massa
ehuse sanng herself dee s that they were SUM-
resting 10 effect upon declaration which proclaimed
that, among the unaliensble rights Of the subject
the right Of acquiring possessing, and protecting properly
Now sir that may do no injustice TO the State OF Mas
sachnsets that may not improperly impugn any State
and do not intend to do IL because If Massachusetts or
any other member OF this confederation, State has
done wrong anything which ought not to have done
she brings reproach upon me as an American citizen as
member Of State affected to certain degree by the mis-
deeds of any State-but do it that this matter may be
fairly understood desire to refer you to this decision of
the supreme of Massachusetts and to ask you wheth
the apse of barely three and years have
destroyed "he eternal fitness of things whether the cit
liens Of Massachusetts of the present day much
wiser and better and than the subects of Massa
chusetts of bygone days. that they sit in judgment
what their fathers did previous to the time when they
entrapped into abolition of slavery by the uninen
tiona insertion Of an article working to that effect, in
Of pfy rnuvn ud
ciary quoted the opinion of law functionaes
the grounds upon which it rests and tell whether
it days down anything relative to the tenure aud cond
ton of slavery which Of the southern States may not
freely and blameesaly maintain? That opinion did not
come up directly, but incidentally, and was given at the
March term of 1903. quote what deem relevant:
"Parsons, G. j. Slavery introduced into this
try after its settlement and tolerated until the rat
of bis master subject to his order and to reasonable
ton for misbehavor was transferable like chatte BY
administrator If the master was guilty Of cruel or
reasonable casgaton Of his slave be liable to be
allowed to demand sureties the violent and
master which generally caused sale to another
maxim Of the civil law the property her thel
ter Under these regulations the Of
general mild and humane and they suffered hardshps not
Slaves sometimes permitted to enjoy privileges
pecu, with the profits of which they enabled to
purchase their manumission, and liberty frequently
granted e faithful slave by the bounty Of his master some
But first action, involving the right the MASTER
which before the supreme judicial
shment Of the constitution, the judges declared that By
tue Of e first article Of The declaration Of rights slavery in
tins State was more"
Here sir you have the statement of the historian and
the opinion OF the urst to show that slavery in Massachu
sets twas no more not by act of the peoples will
pressed through their legislature but by virtue of the first
article of the Declaration of Rights" construed by
into an abolition of the institution.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it not that it is not always
easy or safe to refer human actions to the real human
tive would the opinion that the conduct of Mas
eachueettS, regard has much of the the
spirit about and that persistent assaults upon
the South are but evidences of spite against herself for
having committed act of unntenonal philanthropy in
the emancipation of her negroes when the rights OF her
subjects and her enlarged dollar Sc SC pleaded
Trumpet tongued against
The deep damnation Of their taking off,"
If Stroud has accurately laid down the facts and the
judge correctly expounded then il Massachusetts, allowed
herself to be entrapped by Ga first article" which, far from
mentioning emancipation the right of her "sub
ects possess and protect their propertyand their
groes their property if Massachusetts, did emancpate
interests and rights Of her subjects stood against such
emancipation; then, sir must say that in the estimation
of the world she stands seriously damaged in her essential
superiority much of which lies in the sharp practice and
thrifty cunning of her subjects in the matter of driving
bargains!
Ny object in introducing this decision Mr. Speaker was
to show that slavery and the slave trade existed in Massa
chnsetts comparatively short time prior to the adop
ton of the federal constitutions and that the institution
fell to the ground not by the express will people but
by judicial decision under supposed delegation OF pop
uar power. But to return TO my argument
II all of the States sir hard upon the formation of the
federal compact had the institution of slavery in their
midst if in view of the fact that at the time of the adop
ton OF that compact one-ba of those States maintained
the institution with their other domestic ones
and this under the ample protection Of their rights Of
eregnty; it, maintaining that institution they could not
have consented any delegation of power expressed
implied which could impair it, il they did not consent to
such delegation, and that such granted to Con-
gress; if there Territories which Congress
could exercise this arrogaed powerand there none
and therefore, necessity for comforting such power
and If there necessity it not conferred; then
the only authority delegated Congress that it should
have the power to make all needu rules and regulations
respecting the specific Territory for the surveying
tectng and selling of the land This to me to be
this history aud the true exposition Of this doctrine
of the power Of Congress to egsate upon the subject OF
slavery in the Territories
And now, sir come to the Kansas Nebraska bill, or
rather to the removal of the Missouri restriction was
found that the doctrine of noninterventon had been
stored by the compromise but the question of
nonintervention had left still proviso upon the resrc
on and that that could not into territory north
of SO deg min because had been excluded by
gressona action in direct conflict if not actual subver
sion of the treaty which gave to the people of Louis
lana the right go thher 1t became necessary
intervention had been declared least it did that
this restriction might with propriey be removed But in
the passage of that this strange anomaly presented it
self there had been territory acquired from Mexico in
reference which the question OF slavery had been dis
cussed and settled and 1t had been determined that slave
ry could 20 thther free under Mexican law
and therefore, under treaty powers 1t claimed that
il should remain free On the other hand the treaty of
cession of Louisiana found and legazed slavery in all that
territory institution whilst the power to go into
that territory with slaves had been denied by the Mis-
ttpacf bpnnt hv