Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-03-09

! n h
owner Of the slaves was the head Of tbese com.
munities, and represented himself capital and
labor. Il was obvious that this wss an afir-
tOcracy. The question was what was the du'y
Of Congress as the representative Of both ses.
tiOns to each. He thought it should promote
the interests Of both. This might be some.
times difficult task as sometimes their inter-
ests wOuld conflict, but still he thought it could
be done.
Itwould be impossible to induce either section
to adopt the social system Of the other, but be
believed they could coexist together The Union
was eonglomeration Of separate confederaeies,
the institutions of which were protected by
their local laws A State could not be slave
holding and free at the same time neither could
a Territory. The question was how they could
arrange their difficulties in relation to the
Territories. The early Congresses, under the
provision Of the Constitution, giving power to
make all needful rules and regulations in regard
to the Territories, prohibited slavery therein
and cut off the slave trade as one Of its means
and prevent its extension, and it was believed
to die out quietly without any act Of abolition
The Republicans only propose to carry out this
idea, and he said nothing in it should excite
alarm. .
The rule Of action Of the early legislators was,
where slavery existed let it be; whore it did not,
prohibit it. He quoted at length from the Louisi-
ana act of cession Of the western territory Of
| Georgia, &C., to show that the prohibitory rover
/ Of Congress was conceded and exercised In The
act Of the organization Of Louisiana It was provi-
/ ded that no slave, imported sfter 1898, could be
introduced This was q partial prohibition and
conceded the power Of Congress. He thought the
| North and SOHth should do IS Lot and Abraham
did-one 60 to the right and the other to the left
| That was precisely the action in 1920. when the
! fnanrr linz s1aNnH
restore peace was to restore that line.
| MIR. BeDjsmin said that was the very PROPOSE
| ton of the South in 1880
! Mr.. COllameT continued and argued to show
! that the Compromise Measures Of 1850 were
passed on the Compromise of 1920, and that
taken together they were final settlement of
the slavery difficulty The agitation was re-
newed by the repeal of that Compromise. The
South had no right to claim that the line should
extend over all the territory acquired after
wards when it was simply meant to cover the
territory then owned. The line was lust and
proper, and he contended that there would be
no special danger to the South on the election
of Republican President. He reviewed the
provisions Of the Fugitive Slave act, and con-
tended that it was not the same as the act of
1893 The law of 1850 clothes the Commits
sioner with final powers.
Mr.. MasOu-The Constitution requires that
fugitiYes from service should be delivered up
Does the Constitution submit any other ques-
ton than was he held to service and did he
escape, not whether rightfully or otherwisel
Mr.. CoIlamsr-Th does not touch the point.
When a man was brought before a Commits
sioner the question was, is the man fugitive
slave if he was to take him hack not for trial!
No, this was his trial.
Mr.. Mason claimed that there was no Slave State
in he TTninn huf in Obi hoe
full and ample tllal if the claim were made, if he
were not q fugitive.
Mr.. Colamer would not make an issue on this
point He claimed that the decision was final for
all practical purposes You might say that an
eating house ls free for man to get bis dinuer
but what good does that do if a man has no
money 2 He referred to the speech of the Senator
from Georgia, Mr.. TOOmbs, and denied that there |
was any law in Vermont In conflict in any WaY |
with the Constitution. Even if law happened TO |
be, 1t would hardly justify the charge Of treason
and perjury. The states, as such, did not adopt /
the Constitution. The people bad 10 meet and 4
adopt it. This is a national government: and if /
the States passed an unconstitutional law still it |
isnO foundation for dissolution Of the Uuion - |
Certainly there was no connection between such |
laws andt election of a Republican President -
The Judgment Of a Court Is binding on the parties
in a suit. The u S, never were a party in the |
Dred Scott case, and the decision Of the Supreme |
Court, therefore, was not binding,on the people
Judging from the Democratic Platform in regard |
to the s. Bank, decisions Of the supre@e Court
are not infallibe.
lie claimed that in the Constitution Congress
bad TIA risat to regulate and govern the Terrific
ries aud that there vas no provision in It that /
Congress shall not prohibit slavery. The South |
claim the right TO take slaves there because they
are property, but the Courts have decided that /
slaves are property only by local law, and when
taken cut from such location that they are not |
property. You can not take a slave to a free /
State and keep him and sell hin, Slaves are not
property there, so they are not property in the i
Territories where there is no local in reference to
them. Slaves cannot be held at common law and |
were never held lawfully in England. Slavery
was forced on the colonies by a special statue
against the common law.
He quoted from the decision of English Courts
to show that slaves are not considered legal prop
erty. Buff slaves were property, we had no right
to take them into the Territories for the Terrific
res do not belong to the several States, but to the
people Of the United States. If the Territories
belong TO the States, each has sight to a certain
portion Of the land, and il Sold to portion Of the
money. Thia is not the case.
Mr.. Benz amin desired to reply. He thought the
Senator from Vermont had made mistake in \
history and wished to correct him. The Terrific
~ of Louisiana, acquired from France, was exelu-
sively slave territory. When Missouri applied for
admission the North objected and asked a divis-
ION Nueu al WAS elAf6 LeLElNuIys 4u6 COuluS
weak and fOOlish, yielded half, when it might
have claimed the whole. The next thing was the
acquisition Of territory where there was no slave
~, and the North objected ito the South having
any slave, because it was not slave territory.
The South said, continue the line of diVi-
sion and the North objected, and hence the
North broke the contract. Again, in 1850 the
North refused to abide by the geographical
line and in 1864 went back to the line again.
! A.. A.
Waters there would have been no elamcr to
day. The South had been right and gener-
ous-the North exacting, aggressive, tyranieal
and despotic. he wanted to know if the res
toration of the line was all the Republican
party wanted. That party if he understood it,
was based on hostility to slavery and wo'd never
again admit q slave State Who was the ex~
ponent of that partyl He had thought that
the Senator would admIt that these personal
liberty bills were wrong, but he was understood
to defend them as passed to protect free cih.
zens They were passed for no such thing but
to keep the South from reclaiming their slaves.
He contended that il the negro was free he
would have a lair trial at the South. He
claimed that the Government was q con-
federation of the States and not as the Sena.
tor from Vermont claimed Ofthe people. Tie
Senator from Vermont repeated legal heresy in
saying that slaves were not property and
claimed that from the time when negroes first
existed in Europe up to the time Of the Som
erset case they were always considered as
Slaves It is enough for us to know that
Slavery was recognised by the Constitution Of
the q. S. If that Constitution was changed,
then the UuiOn weu'd be subvelted The
south would rather give up the Union than the
Constitution.
Mr.. Fessenden said It was too late now, but
at some other day he should notice what is
called the legal argument Of the Senator.
On motion of Mr.. Gwin the West Point bill
was taken up,
M WIgfaII Withdrew his former amendment