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

TTVTTTT
Scotland. The master claimed Knight as slave, |
but the court adopted the principle that slavery was
not recognized by the laws of that kingdom, and was
inconsistent with the principles thereof that the reg,
ulations in Jnmaica concerning slaves did not extend
to that Kingdom and repealed the defenders claim 10
Il perpetual service
In more recent case Mr.. Burgc says:
at has been applied when the person has placed
himself beyond the limits of the country in which the
status existed bv law and became subject to the law
of mother country whose institutions did not rccog-
nzo that status though he did not put bis foot on her
shores"
That was where he went on hoard ship, and the
ship carried him off | also cite in the second |
Barnewall & Crcsswcll decided by Chief Justice
Best, where the whole subject is very fully exam
ncd. and where the same decision in the case of
Somerset WINS made. next cite not merely that
case hut cases decided by the Supreme Court OF
the United States. ! have already alluded to Prigg
u.s. PENNSYLVANIA. There is also the case of Groves
rs. Slaughter. That a case from the State OF
Mississippi. Mississippi had forbidden the bring
ing of slaves there for sale but II they we've per
sona property as the Supreme Court say in the
bred Scott case, the same as other personal prop
ertv the States could not regulate the trade in chat
tells of any kind between them. take it, if slaves
be property at ALL they are personal property, Tor
the Constitution says they are persons and you say
they are property The States have no power to
regulate trade between each other The Supreme
Court of the United States were appealed to on
that subject and it was insisted that the power was
vested in Congress to regulate trade between the
other States and the State Of Mississippi and that
nosStatc can forbid the sale of the property of an
other State within its territory. The Supreme
Court however, sustained the right of Mississippi
to do what she did, clearly because slaves were not
like other personal property. The States, the
court said, had the right to prohibit such sale. In
n case in Kentucky, Rankin u.s. LYDIA in second
Marshall, the words OF the court are;
ave view this slavery us a right existing by pos
tive law Of a municipal character, without iounda-
ton in the law of nature or in the unwritten com
mon law"
do not wish to claboatc this point any more.
Mr. Mallory. VIII my friend from Vermont
permit me to draw his attention to II single point!
perceive that he has quoted from the Somerset
case and il has been referred to great deal on the
other side of the Chamber. have not very dis
tinct recollection oft, but will ask him whether,
in that case which is regarded here Us leading
one the sole question before the court of Kings
Bench was not MS to the right Of any man to take
another one out of the realm Of England without
his authority or the authority OF the law and
whether the principle that slave brought from
the West Indies ceases to be slave because he was
brought to England was mootcd there at all
Mr.. Collamcr. The gentleman seems to have
put together in his mind the case Of the slave
Grace, which was before Lord Stowcll, and the
Somerset case that was before Lord Mansfield
The Somerset case clear enough. The fact
was, if the slave was the mans property he had II
right to take him. So the Supreme Court decided
in the Prgg case no distinction of that kind can be
made. lie had right TO take him away if he was
property but the court in Somcrseits case held he
was free in England. 1t is true that in the case of
the slave Grace before Lord Stowell a question arose
as to what would be the effect Of returning volun-
tarly into the masters service in the State where
the service due after the slave had been brought
out, and been in England or France. Lord Stowell
/ said that if the servant Grace returned with her
master, voluntarily to her former status she would
| he Il slave still in Jamaica. | think that the
decision. That has been quite mooted question
here. Our Supreme Court, believe, decided thatin
the Kentucky case of Graham Strader; and if the
Supreme Court, in the bred Scott case, had sim
ply confined itself TO the fact that bred Scott
wherever he was, voluntarily went back with his
master TO Missouri, and thereby returned TO his
| former status, no man would ever have made Il
word about the decision at all.
There is another nice distinction about that made
! by Lord Stowcil, and made, also. i'll a case IN
| Pickering in Massachusetts, and that is, Us to
whether the State or country into which the man
goes forbids slavery absolutely, whether it only
forhids the master from using power, as n master
over him there. If it is the latter, and he yolun
tarily returns, he valves that hut if il is the for
mer, and the slavery is declared absolutely void
and ended then the return would not effect it,
That is however a nice distinction, which it is moi
necessary now to make
The nest point in me syi,ogism Is, thar s,n,v-
being property like any other property, their own
ers have n right to 90 to the Territories with them
What is that founded on | have no doubt tina
slaves are not property though, perhaps, they MAJ
be called such where slavery il authorized by law
but even if they were, how docs this follow VIVA
is the reason that the STAKEHOLDER has n right Il
take his slave there You say the territory whicl
we have acquired belongs to the people Of the sev
eral States. That is not true. 1t belongs to tn
pcople of the United States. If it belongs 10 tn
people Of the several States, each several Stat
would have MS right To proportion OF 1t and II
was sold by the General Government, they woul
, have right to their proportion of the money
+ Clearly so, if the General Government holds it a
a mere trustee for the States, rs ceStu que trusts
Now, how idle is that Here YOU hear one da
that we own the territory and that every man la
: a right to 90 there with his property because eac
i man has a share in the land; and the next day "
admit il as free State, and there is not quartz
of the land sold. Now. according to this doctrine
the people Of the slavcholding States have lost Il
: their land there. 1t is most palpablc mconsl
c tency The assumption that the several State
have an interest in the land there, is not true
: The whole theory Of it is founded wrong dot
!, trne.
In the next place, it is said that, iuasmuch {
slaves are property. and recognized as property
the Constitution Of the United States, (Which n
It gument have already answered. If we ito not a
u low the owners to 60 there with them, it IS an II
= fringement of their rights, and breach Of Il
&c fifth section of tho amendments Of the C0nstitl
Il ton, which declares that man shall be deprive
} of life, liberty, property, without due proce
of law. 1t is curious fact, that the extremes
this question seem TO meet on this common groun
e One man says we cannot permit slaves TO exist
! a Territory at all. Why' because, he says, v
n cannot deprive any man Of his life, liberty,
l. property, without due process Of law. Now,
nj you permit slaves to be holden in n Territory, "
N deprive a man of his liberty. say You do not
d. do not understand that when they allow
l. slavery to continue to exist in Louisiana, they
priyed any man earth of his liberty. 1t W
u gone before. So, too, when they allowed slaves
n be taken, as they did, into Mississippi from Geo
IL, ga, did they deprive any man of his liberty N
he was deprived of it before. So the opposite c
IRENE of the question cite not only the Constt
81 ton to support their doctrine, that you cannot pr
of hibt slavery in the Territories but cite the We
g. same words They say you cannot prohibit it, /
cause they say it will deprive the other of !
OF property. The others say you cannot allow it, /
j cause it will deprive somebody of his liberty.
&C. The fact is, neither is well founded. When t
s. Missouri compromise line was made, there was 4
es white inhabitant black inhabitant, in all t
Mt vast uninhabted region, north of that ne-not
settler in it, When the line was run, and it W