The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-02-04

may possibly, if have this speech printed, en-
body in it.
have another authority, which, have no
doubt, will sound with more force to some, an
Mr. Jefferson does not belong to Young America.
This is in the same book, and the extract is to
be found in the Appendix to the Congressional
Globe, vol. 29, page BAT. Mr.. TooMBs said -
"rhe only difficulty on this point has arisen from some
decisions OF the Supreme Court Of the United States. 1t
,rue they have talked vaguely about the doctrine Of
attach but little importance to the political views of that
tribunal II is safe depository of personal rights bat
believe there has been assumption of political power
by this Government which IL has not vindicated and
found somew here"
It was the opinion of that distinguished Sena-
tor, that no assumption of political power by this
Government had ever occurred which the Su-
preme Court had not indicated and found some
where. think, if that honorable Senator were
to review this subject now, with the increasing
light of history, he would find, at least, one exer-
else of power by this Government which the
Supreme Court of the United States have not
indicated, and have not found somewhere,
though think almost anybody else can find it
everywhere; and that is the power which was
exercised prior to the Constitution, and under
the Constitution down to the present time, and
in force while I speak, on your statute-book to
prohibit Slavery in the Territories. That is an
assumption of political power which the Supreme
Court of the United States have not found any
where. While as the distinguished Senator
from Georgia says there is no assumption of po-
litical power by the Government which that
Court have not indicated, tell him, whenever
this Government has undertaken to act in the
slightest degree in the exercise of its constitu-
tional authority to limit or restrain Slavery, the
Supreme Court have not found a place any
where where it could be INDICATED or sustained.
Mr.. TOOMBS. That was true when uttered,
but it is not so now.
Mr.. HALE. The honorable Senator says it
was historically true when it was uttered, but it
is not true now. Well, it not uttered a
great while ago. They must have had very
sudden conversion, for the speech is not three
years old.
Mr.. TOOMBS. The bred Scott decision has
been made since that
Mr. HALE. The Senator admits everything
said. l have not put before the Senate the posi-
ton of these two illustrious names, one dead and
the other living-Jefferson and Toombs-be
cause / want to invoke the sanction of their
names to cover my opinion but want to throw
them out so that those who are not advised
upon the matter may not think that ! am the
first man who has ever attempted to lift that sill
yer veil with which this "yeiled prophet THE
Supreme Court-hides the hideousness of its
features. Having said thus much, come to the
work. 1t is that very bred Scot case that am
coming to.
There are two positions, and but two, in this
decision, which / am going to examine The
Supreme Court of the United States have declared
that the right to hold slaves and to trade in
slaves, was universally recognised in England
and this country at the time of the American
Revolution and the adoption of the Federal Con-
stitution. That matter is distinctly set forth,
that will send to the Chair an extract, and ask
the Secretary to read it.
The Secretary read it, as follows
the opinion of the count the Legislation and biso
ries Of the times, and the language used in the Declare
of Independence show that neither the class
who had been imported slaves, their descend
ants whether they had become free not then
knowedged OF the people, ended be in
cuded in the general words used in that memorable in
strument.
opinion in relation TO that unfortunate which
vailed i'll the civilized and enlightened portions of the
and when the Constitution of the United States was
framed and adopted But the public history of every
mistaken
They had for than century before been regard
ed beings of inferior order and altogether unfit
associate with the white race either in social polt
cal relations aud far inferior. that they had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect; and that
for his benefit He was bought and sOid and treated
as an ordinary article OF merchandise and traffic, when
profit could be made by it. This opinion was at
that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of
the white race II was regarded as an axiom in morals,
well in politics, which no thought of dispung
supposed TO be open TO disputes and men in every
grade and position in society daily and habituay acted
upon in their private pursuits well matters of
public without doubling for moment the cor
RICHNESS of this opinion.
:" And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed
uniformly acted upon than by the English Gov
and English people They not only seized them
on the of Africa sold them held them sla
very for their but they took them ordinary
articles of TO country where they could
make a profit them and far extensively en-
gagged in this commerce than any other nation In the
world.
land, was naturally impressed upon the colonies they
founded this side of the Atlantic. And accordingly,
negro of the African regarded by them an
article property and held and bought and sold such
in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the
Declaration Of independence and afterwards formed the
Constitution of the United States. The slaves
less numerous in the different colonies slave labor
found more or less profitable; but seems to
have doubted the of the prevailing opinion of
the time"
Mr.. President, in the remaining remarks which
/ propose to submit to the Senate, l shall con-
fine myself to two points or positions assumed in
paper which hold in my hand, called "a re-
port of the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, and the opinions of the Judges
thereof, in the case of bred Scot Uersus John F.
A. Sandford," protesting, however, that l refrain
from an examination of any more at this PERIOD
solely for the want of time. The first of these
points is the affirmation by the Supreme Court
of the United States, that property in slaves is of
the same right as all other property. The other
is, that the right to hold and to traffic in this
property, at the time of the American Revolution,
and at the time of the adoption of the Federal
Constitution, was so universally acknowledged
and recognised in the country from which we
came, and in this country, that no man thought
of disputing it. An extract to that effect, from
the opinion of the Court, has already been read
from the desk by the Clerk. To these two points
shall confne my remarks, contending, in the
first place, that the legal proposition asserted by
the court is unsound and untrue, and not sup
ported by principle or authority and that what
purports to be a statement of facts is not sup
ported by the truth of history.
The first proposition to which have alluded
is more distinctly and more fully expressed in
the Constitution which has been framed by the
Lecompton Convention, and will read the state
ment as it is there expressed:
"The right of property is before and higher than any
constitutional sanction, and the right of the owner of
ss such slave and It's increa is the and as
nvolable the right ofthe of any property what
ever"
think the Lecompton Convention have the
advantage of the Supreme Court in one respect
they are little more explicit. have a higher
respect for the Lecompton Convention than
have for the Supreme Court because the Lee
compton Convention have placed this principle
distinctly on paper, and there is no installing
what they mean, while the Supreme Court have
decided the saGie thing, but have not quite SO
explicitly expressed it to the apprehension of the
common ear Now, sir undertake to maintain
that the principle thus asserted is not true; and
on this point shall ask the attention of the Sem
ate to some authorities; bpt, before asming to
the authorities, let me state what believe ON
this subject.
do not stand here to decide that legally there
is such thing as property in slaves / am not
discussing the moral question, but the legal one
and do not stand here to deny that there is, in
the States tolerating Slavery, legal property in
slaves for, in the free States, we have quail