Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-01-15

nHnnnH aaN
color.
But we are referred to the opinion of Ind
Green, IN the case of the State vs. Cl,ibo,na
Melgs X. 535-as authority 10 show thas The te1.
freeman does not include this class Of person
hAena question Is authortatvely settled bv II
supreme Court, It is decisive. But merc. oDinir
as to question not necessarily arising in the eas
IS no authority. S.r, IN tie case reterrol TO m
construction Of this section of the eonstitution N
not necessarily arise. 1t was argued by counse
aud noticed in the opinion of the court but as n,
/ directly involved In the decision of tho Com
/ Hence we are nos bound by that opinion: and how
ever much admire the ability and learning of IN
distinguished Judge, respectfully submit that n
term freeman, in the constitution Of this State
not used In It's largest sense, and means, as doe
'citizen" in the Constitution Of the United States
one who is entitled to all the privileges and imm1
ties Of the most favored class Of the community.
this be so, then unnaturalized foreigners do nc
come within its provisions, they are not entitle
to all the privileges and immunities Of the most FAY
/ ored class of the community. and their propert
eouie be taken, they exiled and deprived Of thei
/ liberty
Again the Constitution provides chat the right
trial by jury shall remain invoate = that in all erin
inal prosecutions the accused hath right to be hear
by himself and MS council and is entitled to
speedy public trial by impartial Jury of th
county or district in which the crime shall hav
been committed Now, If l understand the ergu
ment it is that the bill makes it an offence foreman
here For this the free persons Of eolor are takeI
up, their properly sold and they exisd. This is th
penalty for the offence II is criminal prosecution
then the accused have right to be heard BY them
selves and council. This the bill denies. They also
have the right TO an impartial trial by jury o.
their cqgnty. This Is also denied them Like
lambs dumb before their shearers they omen nor
their mouths" it viii not be contended that this
class Of persons are not with in these provisions OF
the Constitution
r. Haata So s4rN ia, Ts-A ~
&" no conviction shall work corruption of blood OF
forfeiture Of estate Under this bll if free per-
sons of color remain here after the first Of january
1861, they are guilty Of an offence They are re-
ported, and upon conviction, required to leave
the State; their property is sold the proceeds de-
posted in the treasury of the State from whence
sufHcience can be drawn by the Governor to trans
port them 10 Liberia, and to support them six
months after they get there Many free persons of
color have more money than viii do this, and what
becomes of tt They have rot the poor privilege Of
carrying it with them to their distant home for il
remains in the treasury Of the proud and chivalrous
State of Tennessee. They forfeit it 10 the State bv
not leaving sooner-by being found here on the Ist
Of January, 1861 ask honorable meInbers if this is
not in direct conflict with the 18th section Of the con
stitudon If not l am unable TO discern the force
of language.
And, in this connection would call attention to
the zIst section Of the same article which provides
THAT no man particular services shall be demanded
or property taken, or applied TO public use without
the consent - his representatives or without lust
being made therefor Here is prop
erty taken without any compensation whatever The
term man certainly includes free negroes. and
it is gravely argued by gentlemen that a bill
which directs the sale Of their property without
their consent pa-t of which goes to the State
without any compensation therefor, is not in CON
fict with the Constitution.
Again. section 20 article lst provides that no
law, or law impairing the obligation
Of contracts shall be made.r Is not this bill in
Of this clause Of the Constitution
Is it not law impairing the obligation Of con-
racts!
Mr.. KENNEDY. IlnteTruptingl If I have per
mission from the member from Sumner, should
Ike to ask him a question.
Mr. BENNETT Certainly, sir.
Mr. KENNEDY. l am sitting here for the pur-
,ose Of being instructed and desire at this point
o obtain little light The gentleman has taken
he position that the State OF Tennessee has enter
d into a contract with free persons Of color. l
hould ike to have the evidence Of that fact
a4lr. BENNETT. / viii take pleasure in answer
ng all questions that may be asked. and / think
hall be able to meet all the questions that may be
rOpunded to me I was proceeding to answer the /
question Of my friend from Giles, Marshall and Lin
oln [Alr. Kennedy when he interrupted me. If
his bill impairs the obligation Of contracts it is in
olatiOu Of fundamental law-the Constitution
nd cannot be enforced If passed. In many cases /
he State has granted lands upon sufficient cOnsid-
ration paid. to free persons of color Many Of
hem, doubtless, now hold and occupy these lands }
Eese are contracts directly between the State and
rec persons of cOlOr-this land is held by the same
erms by which other granted lands are held The |
tile Is perfect IN the grantees They are by the
erms Of their grants. to be seized of said land,
hem and their h rs forever. Now this bill in vi
lation Of said grants and the terms thereof directs
sale of said lands without the consent Of the |
wller. If this is not ImpaIring the obligations Of
uch contracts ! am utterly az a loss to know what
means. l might push the argument further in
eferencc to other contracts N regard to property
ut VIII pass 10 the consideration Of a more inn
ortant question in ttis connection.
Is this bill retrospective, in its operation, does
impair the contract Of emancipation? In COM
ION law the master has complete control over the /
uestiOn Of manUmission. This power exists as at |
OmmOn law except in SO far as it is curailed by Leg
slative enactment-HartseI, 2 George; 3 Humph. !
50. The right Of freedom conferred by the master
is an imperfect right until the State-the c0mmu-
ity of which such emancipated person isa member |
ssents to the contract between the master and /
ne slave When such assent is given, the right Is
erect and the slave is freed from thecontrO Of the
laster The granting the assent of the State Is an
ct Of sovereignty. Tins sovereign power to give /
he assent of the government to the manumsson. I
-as conferred by the act Of 1901 upon the county
curt. BY this act the county court is given as 1
lenary power as the Legislature itself possessed /
,
r" The permission TO the enjoyment of freedom /
remain in the State, Is not for definite period.
he time is unlimited. Persons thus manumitted |
re clothed with certain rights, and by various le-
islative enactments and long course OF judicial /
ecisiOn in this State they have acquired pr0prie-
Try and personal rights, all Of which are swept /
'om them by this bill. Now, upon what principle.
r by what means have they acquired these rights
is by contract BY contract with whom? You
ny tits not contract with the State. BE it so.
is by contract. That contract is a legal and
indng one-one made under the laws Of the State
)rced Does this bill impair the obligations of that
ontract! it gave them freedom. This bill takes
nat boon from them. 1t gave them property; this
III takes it from them. Ii gave them the right to
amain in the State; this bill drives them beyond its
orders.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, desire little
lore light uTOH the subject. admit that the gem
eman has proved that there was a contract, but
lat contract was nOtbetween the parties. The con
'act was not between the Stale and the negro The
ontract was between the master and the State.
Mr. BENNETT Very we'll That makes It still
lore binding according to the argument OF the
'iends of the bill Now. why: Because here
0mes the master and says I want to free my
ave the slave cannot free himself and viii do it
,r him. Now, what is the consideration / get
'om ths2 The consideration is that my slave shall
e free The government gives its assent and says
ne slave shall be free. This is q contract per
etual contract But suppose the contract Is made
xclusvely between the master and slave. Such a
Dntract is binding the Supreme Court has re-
eatedly held, and If the assent Of the State is not
iven, the slave still has an inchO3te right to free
ON. It is, then. a contract made by authority of
wv. Can a law any more impair its obligation
rat if it contract on the part of the State or
which she was a party. Iapprehend not II a
laster manumits his slave and the State gives heras-
snt could the Legislature pas actdecaring said
Ontract void and authorizing the MASTER To take
0ssession Of the freed man as his slave If this
Ould not be done. could the Legislature authorize
he slave to be sold unless he was guilty OF some
fence % which that is annexed as a penalty?
But must pass to the consideration Of the other
ranch Of the question. Admitting, for the sake
argument that the bill Is constitutional is it nee
ssary or expedientg Should the Legislature pass
in the form now prescutedg I am not here as
be advocate Of free persons Of color. As a class,
ley are a dangerous, and objectionable population
'here- slaves are numerous, and if their removal
an be effected by law consistent with the Con-
ItutiOn and the principles Of justice and humanity
will support such law. But I viii not, as the
representative of a generous and free constituency,
nOwngly violate either
Mr. Speaker ] have always maintained that gov
rnments. communities, and all ether associations.
hould be governed by the great principles Of
ight~ Justice and humanity. that obtain between rs
! the private relations Of life. In the hght of I
hose principles let US analyze the bill
Il is argued that free negroes are nuisance
hat thev are dangerous to the body polite and for
D.. nf-n Al