Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1860-04-07

then, are slaves property The court utterly DIS
regarded their own decisions on that subject in
making this. think if anything can be establish
ell from the decisions of courts it is that slavery
exists by local law, confined to the territory over
which the law Is operative; and if persons held in
slavery go out of and beyond that territory, they
are no longer slaves and if slaves are property by
the law within that territory, they are not without
it, In relation to this point, whether slaves are
property beyond the States so recognizing them, |
deny the major proposition, to begin with. say
the very language of the Constitution implies the
contrary 1t says that il person holden to ser
vice under the laws Of one State escape into anoth
err, he shall be returned. "lIeld to servioe!'-
How Under the laws of State. "IIeld to SER
vice under the laws thereof" is the language.
When that man bound to service in one State es-
capcs into another State, is he property there =
Can the master go and take him there, and keep
him there, and sell him there, and use him there'
If he is like other property, and the Supreme
Court says it is precisely the same rs other proper
ty, all that would be true; but we know it is not.
That provision of the Constitution declares oil laws
of other States that would release him from the
service void; that is all. 1t contemplates that
such laws might be passed, bat says they shall not
have that effect. 1t does not discharge him from
the service in the State where lie belongs, and only
provides for the man being surrendered up and
taken where he belongs, and where he owes the
service. The Supreme Court of the United States,
in the of Prigg rs. Pennsylvania, decided the
very same thing. They in so many words decided
shat slavery was n mere local matter; | will cite
their very words
"The state of slavery is deemed to he mere mu-
nicpal regulation, founded upon and limited to- the
range Of territorial laws'-10 Peters Report, page
Gil.
What did the Supreme Court do with that de-
csion of theirs when they decided the bred Scott
case? Never said word about it; utterly disre-
-. / -. ..1. s.1
it ut all. | hold in my hand the authorities, as
collected in Burgess Commentaries on Colonial and
Foreign Laws the subject of the conflict of
laws with regard to slavery. will not read II at
length, but here and there. hold, first that at
common law, by which mean the common law of
England slaves could not lie holden at all. They
never were holden lawfully in England. When
the question arose, it was at once decided in Som
ersett's case. | know there had been an opinion
given before that time, when a question arose in
relation to their navigation act, whether, under the
navigation act, slaves were merchandise 1t was
not decided by any suit, but an opinion being
called for, by the privy council, an opinion was
given that they were, and therefore, foreigners
could not carry the slave trade with the British
colonies; they wanted it all themselves. The board
of trade with the King in council, had their mega
tive on the colonial laws. They disagreed to them
when the colonies attempted to pass laws against
the slavery carried there under the Assiento con-
tract which the gentleman (AIr. Bcnjamin) well
understands. 1t was profitable business to the
trade of England. By the colonial charter, the
King in council, had a negative the acts of the
colonial Legislature. Sometimes they were mega
tived in that way sometimes acts were passed eff
6ectng the same end. In short they forced the
slave trade and the holding of slaves on the colo
MES by statute. by their power to regulate trade,
they forced it upon the colonies when it was nj
ways against the common law. Such was clearly
the case as laid down in the authorities collect
ed by Burge. They passed, from time to time,
statutes to aid and encourage the trade. He says
"Sir John Hawkins was the first Euglishmau who
in 1862 introduced the practice of buying or kidnap
ping negroes in Africa, and transporting selling
them for slaves in the West l. dies. In 1920. Dutch
vessel carried cargo Of slaves from Africa TO Viz
GINA
After that was the opinion under the navigation
act. He says:
The Legislature of Pennsylvania, when the Brit
ish colony, passed, the 18th of june 1872, ac
to prevent the importation Of negroe. and Indians in
to that province. 1t disallowed by Great Britain
and accordingly repealed by an act Of Queen Anne
on the Goth of February, 1913"
"In 1865, the Governor of Jamaica informed til,
| Assembly Of that island, that consistently with h
instructions, he could not give his assent to bill
| which had been read twire, for limiting tie mporta
ton Of slaves into that colony. In l774, tie uuaic'
Assembly attempted to prevent the further Importation
by increase of duties thereon and for thi. purpos
pussod two ncts The merchants Of Bristol and Liv
erpool pettoned against their ALLOWANCE. The boar
Of trade made II report against them. The agent q
Jamaica was heard against that report: but upon tn
| recommendation of the privy council the acts wcr
disallowcd, and the disallowance accompanied by IL
instruction to the Governor dated the 2sth of febrl
airy, 1775 by which lie prohibited, upon pain g
being removed from his government from giving hi
assent TO any act by which the duties on the impura
ton Of slaves should be augmented"
The same author declares
Upon the disappearance of slavery in Europe,
commenced in America. The great Powers, England
France, Holland, Spain, and Portugal, some Of whoi
boast of the freedom Of their Institutions cXertcd Il
their energies and authority to introduce and mail
tain it in their colonies, by means Of the African slaV
trade Their resources were employed, and the
subjects invited and encouraged TO fill their colOn,
with slaves We turn with disgust from the yarui
cuee to themselves the monopoly Of this Odious trlii
to the revenues which they derived from it, and
the rcmor,eless perseverance with which Englnl
and France uniformly resisted every attempt On Il
; part of their coonists to check its progress.
ITO the existence OF slavery in their colonies Il
parent States gave the fullest and most active encuu
= agement Uncer the sanction ot their laws and Il
decisions Of their courts, slaves became property.
But whilst they sanctioned, encouraged, and reco
nzed the legality Of slavery in their colonies, they
nounced its existence in their possessions in Europe
THIS was not peculiar to England, hut cXtcnded
4 the other nations mentioned.
Mr.. Benjamin viii the Senator permit me
moment | ask him just there, whether the auth
8 cites any authority showing that the English Go
crnment discouraged slavery in England at I
a time these colonies had it introduced among the
: whether he cites a solitary authority or hisI
rian
I, MI. Collamer. will read
i There. exists, then Il status which is legal in (
countries in which it is constituted, but Illegal In
!. other country to which the person may resort.
% an this conflict there has been uniformity