Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-03-16

State in Justice to themselves and posterity submit
to it? Certainly not, They, cannot ought not
and will not submit to it Should not the owners
of slave-property come forward with that spirit Of
magnanimous liberality which should ever inspire
the heart of patriotism to the support of this meas
ure voluntarily surrender the superior advantages
which they have so long enjoyed and place them
selves and their property on an equality with their
neighbours who arc less able but who have had to
bear the burthens of government in an undue pro-
portion for the last twenty -four years? go
The second objection to altering the constitution
is that this restriction upon the General Assembly
was one of the compromises of 1885. ,EtE,
Now, Mr. Speaker, if this be true, must confess
that have totally failed to discover any evidence of
the fact in the investigation which | have made of
this subject and think that those who urge twill
find themselves upon an investigation OF the matter
without the slightest evidence to sustain the objection.
deny, therefore that it was of the compro-
misses of 1885; and challenge those who assume
that it to furnish evidence of the fact, if they
can. If it had been one of the compromises OF
1886, the act calling and restricting the convention
would furnish the same evidence upon this subject
which it does in reference to those subjects which
were compromised in fact. The General Assembly
of 1854 agreed upon certain alterations which were
TO be made by convention to be held in the city of
Raleigh in 1886. The subjects Of compromise were
all incorporated into the constitution in conformity
with the restrictions imposed upon the convention
by the Legislature of 1884. There were certain
other matters specified in the act of 1884, upon
which the convention was not restricted, but might
or might not act as it deemed proper Among
those alterations suggested in the act but left dis
cretonary with the convention to be made or not
was that of restricting the General Assembly, in
the collection of revenue, to equal capaton tax
upon slaves and white persons That it was not
then considered one of the compromises is evident
from the fact that the convention not as in the
case of those subjects which were compromised, re-
quired to make the alteration but left perfectly free
to make it not. Those who assert that this was
one of the compromises of 1885, apparently forget
that compromise is mutual concession of rights.
Ii there must be a mutual concession of rights to
| constitute compromise, what equivalent was
given to the non-saveholder in consideration of the
| discrimination against him? None whatever Does
he enjoy any privilege not enjoyed by the slavehod
er, or is he exempt from any duty imposed upon the
STAKEHOLDER under the government? No, sir. Can
there be compromise where there is no mutual
concession of rights? think not
| If, then, Mr. Speaker, the non-saveholder enjoys
privileges under the government other than those
enjoyed by Shareholders in consideration of this dis
elimination against him, there aras no mutual con-
cessiOn of rights; it was no compromise and the OBJ
| lection fails.
The third objection is, that the public debt was
incurred under the present system of rerenue, and
therefore it ought to be- paid under it. think this
the weakest Of all the objections made to altera
ton Of the constitution and the abandonment of this
unjust revenue system. If it be admitted THAI be-
cause revenue law FRAMED upon no principles of
justice OF equality was in force when the public
debt was made, it should be continued until that
debt be paid how can We justify the Legislature in
bringing in new subjects of taxation, increasing
the taxes the old before the public debt is paid
And if that principle adopted generally by the
statesmen of North Carolina we should have but
little for another General Assembly for if
laws to be Interchangeable like those of the Modes
and Persians we have quite enough to last for
! all time to come. But | think the objection was
better adapted to the views of the Modes and Per-
slams than to the enlightened reemen of North Car
DINA in the nineteenth century.
might ask, Mr. Speaker, if partial immunity
from taxation for twenty-five years. by that class Of
property who have derived the chief benefit
from the public debt, not quite long enough to
satisfy liberal men? But | could hardly hope for
a satisfactory answer from one who would raise so
tiimSy an objection to change in revenue system
which is admitted to be unfair, unequal and Must.
The fourth objection to the passage of the bill I'M
der consideration that the constitution should be
altered, negroes as we'll as other property, will be
taxed al rdl0rem.
Well, Mr. Speaker, have met with no member
of the Legislature other person. who does not ad-
nit the correctness of the principle of taxation adj
rnlorem upon every other species of property. Now
if the principle be correct in its application to other
property, WIZ not in its application to slaveproper
ty: Are not slaves property: This is question
of vast Importance not only to North Carolina but
to the whole South. And as it is not improper to
ascertain the opinions of others in reference to a
matter in which are so vitality interested, hope
the Senate will pardon me for reading portion of a
speech recently delivered in the city Of New Orleans
by one of the ableSt statesman not only in this
country, but of the world upon this subject. Sena-
tor Douglas in addressing the citizens of New Or
leans upon the question Of slavery in the territories
of the United States. says: 1.-THE democratic party
SAYS that Congress has no right to establish or to
prohibit slavery. We say that the territories
should be open to the citizens of the United States
to go there with their property, and subject
alike to the laws, when they arrive there. But
an objection is raised by some OF our southern
friends and have been asked here and at home,
what meant by the doctrine of popular sovereignty
in the territories, and whether we ABIDE oy tne Dre
Scott decision. In discussion with my opponent,
Mr. Lincoln, at Freeport Illinois, the question was
put to me whether, in the event that the people or
Legislature of territory were hostile to slavery,
there was any lawful means by which slavery could
be excluded said yes, and proceeded to state the
means. will state them here to you. The Dem
ocracy of Illinois, in the first place. accepts the de-
csion of the Supreme Court of the United States in
the case of bred Scott as authoritative interpre-
tation of the constitution In accordance with that
decision we hold that slaces property and hence
on an equality with all other kinds Of property and
the owner of slave has the same right to move in
to territory, and carry his slave property with him.
as the owner of any other property has to go there
and carry his property. All citizens of the United
States, no matter whether they come from the North
or the South from free State or slave State can
, enter territory with their property an equal
f footing. But apprehend, when you arrive there
with your property you subject to the local law
of the territory. How can your slave property be
protected without local law? The constitution gives
, you right to 60 into territory and carry you1
Slave property with you but it does not punish any
man for stealing your slave when you get there II
) does not punish for stealing any other prop
erty when you get there Congress yet passed
law to punish crime protect property in any or
5 ganized territory. Congress never yet passed :