Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1860-06-22

perjury, II, IN Their understanding, any
proper division between local and federal
authority, or anything in the Constitution
they had made themselves and sworn to
support, forbade the Federal Governmental
control as to Slavery in the Federal Terri
tories. [Cheers Thus the twenty-oue
acted; and as actions speak louder than
words, so actions under such responsibility
speak still louder. Two Of the twenty
three voted against the Congressional pro-
hibition Of slavery in the instances in which
they acted upon the question. But for
what reason they so voted is not known
They may have done so because they
thought proper division Of local from Fed
eral authority or some provision or principle
Of the Constitution stood in the way or
they, without any such question, have voted
against the prohibition on what appeared to
them to be sufficient grounds of expediency.
No one who has sworn to support the
Constitution can conscientiously vote for
what he understands TO be an unconstitu-
tioual measure, however expedient he may
think it; but one may and ought to vote
against measure which he deems con-
stitutional, it, al the same time, he deems
it inexpedient. It. therefore, would be un-
safe to set down even the two who voted
the prohibition, as having done so because,
in their understanding, and the proper divis-
ion of local from Federal authority, or any
thing in the Constitution, forbade the Fed
eral Government to control as to slavery in
Federal Territory. Laughter and pro-
longed applause. Tho remaining sixteen
of the thrty-nnc, so far as l have discov-
cred, have left no record of their under.
standing upon the direct question of Federal
control of slavery in the Federal Territories
But there is much reason to believe that
their understanding upon that question
would not have appeared different from
that Of their twenty-three compeers, had il
been manifested at all. For the purpose oI
adhering rigidly to the text, 1 have pur.
posely omitted whatever may have been
manifested by any person, however dis.
tngushed, other than the thirty-nine faith,
ers who framed the original Constitution
and for the same reason, | have also omit
ted whatever understanding may have been
manifested by any of the "thrty-nine" even,
on any other phase of the general question
of slavery. If VIC should look into their
acts and declarations on those ether phases,
as the foreign slave trade, and the morality
and policy of slavery generally, it would
appear to us that on the direct question Of
federal control of slavery in the federal ter
ritories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all
would probably have acted just as the TWEEN
ty-three did.
ANTI-sLAvERY MEN OF THE LAST CENTURY.
Among that sixteen were several of the
most noted anti-slavcry men of those times
DR.. Franklin, [cheers Alexander Hamil-
ton, and Gouverneur Morris-while there
was not one now known to have been 9TH
erwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, Of
South Carolina. Applause The sum Of
the whole is, that Of our "thirty-nine" faith.
ers who framed the original Constitution
twenty-one--a clear majority of the whole
certainly understood that no proper di
vision of local from federal authority, MOI
any part of the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government to control slavery il
the Federal Territories, while all the rest
probably, had the same UNDERSTANDING
Such, unquestiouably, was the understand
ing Of our fathers, who framed the orgina
Constitution and the text affirms that they
understood the question better than we
Laughter and cheers.
But, so far | have been considering the
understanding of the question manifeseC
by the trainers of the original Constitution
In and by the original instrument mode
was provided for amending it; and, as
have already stated, the present form o.
government under which we live consists o
that original, and twelve amendatory arti
cles framed and adopted since. Those who
now insist that Federal control of Slavery
in Federal Territories violates the Constitu.
ton, point us to the provisions which they
suppose it thus violates and as / under.
stand, they all fix upon provisions in these
ameudatory articles, and not in the original
instrument.
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE DRED SCOTT
CASE.
The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott
case, plant themselves upon the fifth amend
ment, which provides that "no person shall
be deprived of his property without due
process of law;" while Senator Douglas
and his peculiar adhercnts plant themselves
upon the tenth amendment, providing
that "the powers not granted by the Con.
stitution, are reserved to the States respect
lively, and to the people," Now, il so hap
pens that these amendments were framed
by the first Congress which sat under the
Constitution the identical Congress which
passed the act already mentioned, enforcing
the prohibition of Slavery in the North,
western Territory. Applause Not only
was it the same Congress, but they were the
identical, Same individual men who, at the
same session and at the same time within
the session, had under consideration, and in
progress toward maturity, these Constitu
lional amendments, and this act prohibiting
slavery in all the Territory the nation theT
owned.
The constitutional amendments were in
troduced before and passed after the act oI
enforcing the ordinance of 's7; so that du
ring the whole pendency Of the act to en-
force the ordinance, the constitutional
amendments were also pending. Thai
Congress, consisting in all of seventy-sis
members, including sixteen of the framer,
of the original Constitution, as before stated
who were nre-eminently 1our fathers VIII