Bedford inquirer and chronicle. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1854-1857, 1857-05-15

, nlcnt by the National Government; and
) hence the eminent propriety of the Legisla-
) ture of Pennsylvania taking these grave
questions into serious consideration. Let
US inquire then, as briefly az possible, whether
there is anything in the Constitution Of the
United States, or in our Legislative or Judicial
history, to warrant the PRONUNCIATION Of such
monstrous doctrines as are set forth in this
third proposition.
That slaves in the slave States, and for
certain purposes, are recognized as proper
ty, viii not be denied, but that they do
not differ from other property, or that they
are mere property BY any express or fairly
implied provisions of the Constitution Of the
United States, 10 most unwarranted as
sumption. On the contrary, the word stovs
or stapery is nowhere used in ihatinstrument
and where they are spoken of BY description
they are called persons. 10 the third section
OF the FIRST article of the Federal Constitu-
ton, fixing the basis Of representation and
taxation, slaves are described by the words,
'taref tff:ds Of aH Other PERSONS" So also
10 iLe third section of the fourth article be-
fore cited, 90 the subject Of fugitive slaves
The language there is: .'So prison held TO
service or labor in Que State under the laws
thereof, escaping into another" e.. Here
tofore, as already shown by numerous au-
thorltIcs cited, they have been adjadged and
treated as persons and citizens, and as such
allowed to sue aud be sued in both the State
and Federal courts, they have been deemed
under the protection of the laws for the Sc
curly Of their persons, their property aud
their liberty; and they have been held re-
sponsible in all criminal courts for the perpe-
traiion bf crimes. But now, for the frsr
time, in the face Of those plain provisions Of
The Constitution, in defiance of all past ad-
Indications of the Courts, We are eravely
told that slaves are only property, aud
differing in 10 respect from other property,
and that therefore, inasmuch as no man eau
be prevented frcm taking bis horse info ans
State az Territory, SO neither eau he be pro-
libiscd from taking bis slaves there. And
IN further Development Of This new idea,
we are further informed by the opinion of
the court in this Dred Scott case, that the
celebrated JeGersoaian Ordinance Of 1854.
the Ordinance Of 1857, aud the no less
celebrated Missouri Compromise Law of
1920, excluding slavery from the National
Territories, were all euacted in violation of
the Constitution Of the United States. aud
that they are therefore all null aud void
Ii these things DO SO, then there can be no
limitations put npon slavery by Congress;
and the right TO hold slaves, and to slavery
extension icing guaranteed by the Canstitu-
tion of the Uuited States, no State Cgusiitu-
t1n or State law can reach it, for The Con-
stitu;ien ot ths United States is the supreme
law Of the land.
Thomas Jefferson vas the author Of tie
Ordinance Of 1887, which was enacted BY
the Continouiai Congress. with only one dis
seuting voicc 1t provided a territorial
government for that immense territory north
and west of the river Ohio. The sixth article
| Of that Ordinance is in the following words:
''There shai. be neither slavery nor TO-
voluntary servituds in said territory, other
wise than in punishment of crime, whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted.
In 1889, and after the adoption of the
Constitution, the first Congress under il
| land in which were fourteen members of the
Convention which framed th. Constitution,
including James Madisou) bill Wis passed
re-enacsipg the Ordinance of 1887, and
the preamble to said bill was as follows;
ssWHEREAs, In order that the Ordinance
of the United States il Congress assembled
Tor the government of the territory nor,h
and west of the Ohio river, may continue 10 |
haus tuil cfsct. it is requisite that certain
provisions should be made so as to adapt
the same 10 the present Constitution Of the |
United States; therefore, be it enacted ,&e.' |
This act was approved by George Wash |
ington as President; and hs had also been /
President of the Convention which framed |
the Constitution. Here is most explicit |
and official declaration, by the first Presi- /
dent and the FIRST Congress, of the views
then held of the constitutional power of Con-
grcss to prohibit slavery in the territories.
Numerous other instances can be cited, and /
without going into details, your committee
will refer to two classes of congressional /
acts upon the subject. Ia one class, Con-
gress has extended the Ordinance of 1881 /
over territories, thereby prohibiting slavery
therein; and in the other, Congress has g.
rected governments over territories where
slavery already existed, and refused by pos-
tive enactment to exclude slavery there-
from.
OF the Grs. class are the act of May Z,
1900, Il Stat. at Large. 5S.l Cor the gey- /