The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1860-03-29

|
| George Cfymer.
no line dividing local from Federal authority
nor anything in the Constitution, properl,
frobade Congress to prohibit slavery in tn
Federal territory else both their fidelity t
correct principle, and their oath to supper
the Constitution, would have constrained
them to oppose the prohibition. Again, Geo
Washington, another Of the "thirty nine, ;
was then President of the United States, aad
as such, approved and signed the bill, thus
completing its validity as a law, anl thus
showing that, in his understanding, no line
dividing local from Federal authority, nol
anything in the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery
in Federal territory. No great while after
the adoption of the original Constitution
North Carolina ceded to the Federal Govern,
ment the country now constituting the State
Of Tennessee and a few years later Georgia
ceded that which now constitutes the States
of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds
Of cession it was made condition by the
ceding States that the Federal Government
should not prohibit slavery in the ceted coun.
try. Beside this, slavery was then actually
in the ceded country. Under these circum-
stances, Congress, on taking charge of those
countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery
within them. But they did interfere with
1.-THE control Of it-even there, to q certain
extent. In 1898, Congress organized the
Territory of Mississippi. In the act of or
ganization they prohibited the bringing OF
slaves into the Territory, from any place
without the United States, by fine, and Civ
ing freedom to slaves so brought This act
passed both branches Of Congress without
Yeas and Nays. In that Congress were
three cf the ''thirty nine who framed the
original Constitution. They were John
Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Bat
dwin. They all, probably, voted for it, Ger
tainly they would have placed their opposi-
ton to it upon record. if, IN their understands
ing, any line dividing local from Federal a l.
thority, or anything in the Constitution,
properly forbade the Federal Governments to
control as to slavery in Fedc.al territory. In
1903 the Federal Government purchased the
Louisiana country. Our former territorial
acquisitions came from certain Of our own
States but this Louisiana country was ac-
quired from a foreign nation. In 1901,
Congress gave Territorial organization to
that part Of it which now constitutes the
State OF Louisiana. New Orleans Iyingwithin
that part, was an old and comparatively large
city. There were other considerable towns
and settlements, and -lare~y vas extensively
and thoroughly intertaing!cd with the people
Congress did not, in the Territorial act, pro-
hibit slavery hut they did interfere with
it--takc control Of tin Il more marked and
extensive way than they dill in the case OF
Mississippi. The substance of The provision
therein made, in relation 20 @}avas, was:
1st.-That no slave vho"ll ne imported
into the Territory from foreign parts.
2nd.--That no slave should he carried into
It who had been imported into the United
States since the first day Of May, 1893.
&d.-That no slave should he carried into
it except by the owner, au,l Cor his own use
as a settler-the penalty in all eases being q
fine upon the vioIator of the law, and freedom
to the slave.
This act also was passed without Yeas and
Nays. In the Congress which passed it.
there were two of the "Shirty-nine' They
were Abraham Raliwin and Jonathan Day
ton. As stated in the case or Mississippi, It
is probable they voted for it. They would
not have allowed it to pass without recording
their opposition to it, if, in their understand,
ing, it violated either the line properly divi
ding local from Federal authority or any pro.
vision Of the Constitution.
In l8l9-2o, came, and passed, the Missouri
question. Many votes were taken, by Yeas
and Nays, in both branches of Congress,
upon the various phases of the general ques,
ton. Two of she "thirty- nine Rufus
King and Charles Pinckney-were members
Of that Congress. Mr.. King steadily voted
against slavery prohibition, and against all
compromises. BY this Mr.. King showed
that, in his understanding, no line dividing
local from Federal authority. nor anything in
the Constitution, was violated by Congress
prohibiting Slavery in Federal Territory
while Mr. pickney, by his votes, showed
that in his understanding there was some
some sufficient reason for opposing such pro.
hibition in that case.
SUMMARY or THE FAcTs---coNcLuSIoN IRRE.
srsTIRLP.
The cases have mentioned are the only
acts of the Hthirty-nine, or of any of them
upon the direct issue, which have been able
to discover. 70 enumer,te the persons who
thus acted, as being four in 1884, three m
1887, seventeen in 17s9, three IN l79S, tive
in 1904, and two IN 1912 -2o-there would
be thirty one of them But this would be
counting John Langlon, Roger Sherman
William Few, Rufus King, and George Reed
each twice, and Abraham Baldwin four times
The true number ofthose ofthe .'thirty nine
whom have shown to have acted upon this
question, which, by the text, they understood
better than we, is twenty three, leaving six
teen not shown to have acted upon it in any
way. Here, then, we have twenty three o
our "thrity nine" fathers who framed tn,