The Potter journal. [volume] (Coudersport, Pa.) 1857-1872, 1860-08-23
TERMS, --$l.25 PER hNNUM.

HlDlt S.dNeIy put tllcN uiS i"'NiAoA "4tA
it-take control of it--in more marked
and extensive way than they did in the
case of Mississippi. The substance of the
provision therein made in relation to
slaves was
First. That no slave should be I'M
ported into the Territory from foreign
parts.
Second. That no slave should be car
ried into it who had been imported iuto
the United States since the first day Of
May, 1898.
Third. That DO slave should be car
ried into it except by the owner, and for
his own use as a settler; the penalty In
all cases being fine upon the violator of
the law and freedom to the slave. Pro-
longed cheers
This act was also passed without yeas
and nays. In the Congress which passed
it, there were two of the thirty nine"
They were Abraham Baldwin and Jona-
than Dayton. As stated in the case of
Mississippi, 1t is probable they both vot-
ed for it. They would not have allowed
it to pass without recording their cpposi-
tion to it, if, in their understanding, it
violated either the line properly dividing
local from Federal authority or any pro-
vision of the Constitution. In 1919 and
1920 came apd passed the Missouri ques-
ton. Many votes were taken, by yeas
and nays, in both branches of Congress,
upon the various phases Of the general
question Two Of the thirty -nine"-
/ Rufus King and Charles Pinckney-were
members Of that Congress. Mr.. King
steadily voted for slavery prohibition and
against all compromises, while Mr.. Piuck-
ney as steadily voted against slavery pro-
hibition and against all compromises.
|TCheers. BY this, Mr.. King showed
that, in his understanding, no line divid-
ing local from Federal authority, nor any,
thing in the Constitution, was violated by
! Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal
territory; while Dir. Pinckney, by his
votes, showed that in his understanding,
there was some sufficient reason for OPP
posing such prohibition in that case. The
cases | have mentioned are the only acts
of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them,
upon the direct issue, which have been
tabl5 to discover To enumerafe the per-
sons who thus acted, as being four in
/ 1884, three in 1877, seventeen In 1889,
/ three in 1898, two in 1904, and two in
/ IS19-20-there would be thirty-one of
/ them. But this would be counting John
Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few,
Rufus King and George Read each twice,
and Abraham. Baldwin four times. TAp-
plause.7 He was Georgian, too. Re-
newcd applause aud laughter. The true
number Of those of the thirty-nine"
whom ! have shown to have acted upon
the question, which, by the text, they un-
dcrstood better than we, is twenty three,
leavirg sixteen not shown to have acted
upon it in any way Here, then, we nave
twenty three Of our " thirty nine" fathers,
who framed the Cove nment under which
we live, who have, upon their official re-
spon>iDility aud their corporal oaths, act
ed upon the very question which the text
afirms " they understood just as well,
and even better than we do now" and
twenty-one of them-a clear majority of
the whole " thirty -nlne"-so acting upon
it as to make them guilty of gross politi-
cal impropriety and wilful perjury, if, in
their understanding, any proper division,
between local and Federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution they had
made themselves and sworn to support,
r.,I,oJo H. I!olor.1 Gororpronpt "a on
troll as to slavery in the Federal Terrific
rios. TCheers.] Thus the twenty-oue
acted and as actions speak louder than
words, SO actions under such responsible
ity speak still louder
Two of the twentv-three voted against
Congressional prohibition of slavery III
the Federal Territories, 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 Federal authority, or some provision
or principle of the Constitution, stood In
the way; or they may, without any suck
question, have voted against the prohibit
tion on what appeared to them to be suf-
fcent grounds of expediency. No one
who las sworn to support the Constitu-
tion can conscientious y vote for what he.
understands to be an unconstitutional
measure, however expedient he may think
it but one may and ought to vote against
a measure which he deems constitutional,
II, at the same time. he deems it inexpg-
dent 1t therefore would be unsafe to-
set down even the two who voted against
the prohibition as having done so because,
in their understanding, any proper dlvis-
ion of local from Federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to sla-