Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1860-01-17
REMARKS OF mn. TREwHITT,
Oh ass Fro Nero BIZ, !. <z< Hsnsz of .Rsprss
sentatipes, January 9, 1860.

introduced by hr. Barksdale, and the amend
ment offered By Mr.. Caldwell, being under
consideration In the House of Representa-
tives on Monday:
Mr.. TREwHITT said Mr.. Speaker-I have
been absent during the discussion upon
this bill. until TO day. and to day have been
silent listener and observer Of what has
ben said--I have heard four able speeches
delivered in this house, three by enemies of
the principles Of the bill and one in favor of
;heTa, and after hearing What have, like the
Representative from Cheaibam. who has just
taken bis seat. can no longer rtmai. silent.
! feel il my duty to say something in behalf
Of the principles Of the bill before the House.
My constituents have deep interest in the
fate of the BILL and have much feeling upon
the subj CT. AID expect me 10 aid all can
in procuring the passage of bill expelliBg
from our State free persons of color. 6
There are three bills now before this House,
one by the committee, one in lieu by Mr..
BaTksdale and the last one an amended
bill proposed by the representative from Nc
MINI. Mr.. Caldwell, } which latter bill | re-
gard as being mere police reputation and
is intended to kill of the original BILL / shall
coDfine my RENAL ks TO the question involve d
in Tie original bill. and to the bill in lieu,
either of which am willing to vote for.
Under tb'se bills two great grave ques-
tons are involved and demand of US calm
and sober consideration.
The first question is one of Constitutional
character. the other is one of State policy
and exp.diency.
Upon the Constitutional question it is in
sisted by the enemies of the bill, that ..
common law and under the Constitution OF
our State, the free persons of color in our
State have rights which are vested and which
cannot be aiienated by US. That this right
they have derived from the principles of the
common law. and under the Constitution of
cur State. That their freedom and acquisi-
ton of property under the sanction and By
The permission of the sovereign powers o.
our State vest such rights in them as to
place them beyond our reach. This position
bold to be- 1ntenable--it is at war with
the incidental and necessary powers of State
sovereignty. Let us see how the question
stands. Under the head of State Sovereignty,
we find the power of banisbment, and the
power TO exile, the fist may be exercised be-
cause a person or class of persons within the
State are injurious and dangerous to tile
public weiiare-the End, when crime has
been committed. &c. And | challenge the
enemies Of the bill 20 come up 10 these ques
iiUns and discuss them. but know they will
not. the doctrines and teachings of all ,minenL
and learned writers npon tie laws of nations
present solid front against them.
This Is Government of the white man.
and not that of the white man and negr
jointly. 1t Is insisted that free persons
color have common law vested rights.
propose TO show that such is not the case ex
eept so far as an incident TO effectuate some
qualified RICH, given to them under our
laws. Let us see how this common law
question stands. Ii is well settled princi
pie of the law of nations that the sovereig
who first discovers continent or country g.
by virtue thereof owner and prOprieto
thereof, and upon planting colonies therein.
the inhabitants thereof transport with then
the laws OF the country they emigrat from
and applying this principle TO the SUI ice p
now under consideration, so far as the con
mon law question of vested right, is concern
ed, we find that this country at its discover,
belonged TO the English government, an6
settled by English Colouies who tronght
with them the common law. They came here
as freemen and sustained that free dom-not
So with persons of color, they came h, re in
slavery end bondage and servitude, and such
were and are yet their status, except so far
az modified and changed by owners with the
consent OF the sovereign, from time to time.
They brought with them none of the princi-
piles Of the common law or law of their coun-
try. Their natural status in America Is that
of property and not OF person. The United
States is one OF free white men - the
by free white people, it belongs to them
the sovereign power is lodged in them.
and not jointly with persons OF
color. Thus it will be seen that free white
men have common law rights and inalienable
rights. because their natural status in Amer
lea is that OF ireemen, but the status of the
negro in America is that of property Under
the Constitution of 1896, the free persons of
color had many rights, civil and political,
they have not now. They are cut off by the
amended constitution of 1884 But here
again it is insisted by the Representative from
Sumner, as well as by the Representative
from Davidson. that under the Constitution
of 1884, free persons of color have vested
righl to liberty and property. aud hence, this
body has no power To interfere with either.
and 10 support this suppOsition, they rely
upon the Sth section Of the bill of rirhts.which
reads, mo freeman shall be taken or -impriS-
oBed or disseiZcd of his freehold. Liberties or
privileges, OuIlawcd or exiIed, &c. &c, but
by the Judgment of his peers or the law of
the land" Now, ia order TO make their ar
gumen. hold good they insist that the word
freeman includes free persons of color a. we'll
as free white men; such position IS at war
with the genius OF our government. a. well
as with the construction of our Supreme
Court. In the case of the State VS.. Claiborne.
in Msigs' Reports, the Supreme Court in that
case hold that the words freeman IefeTs To
the white man and not 10 tree persons of col
or. So that 10y that decision. the surest bea-
cen light we can follow. the foundation upon
which rests the gentlemen's argument il
swept from them. But stop not here.
am willing to test the question upon princi-
pie The word freeman or treemen means
those who are OF the most favored class OF
citizens, having civil and political rights, and
capable of succeeding To any Office in The gift
Of the people, and who compose 1t part IF the
body polite. and hound to allegiance TO the
government. Srch is not the case with a
Tree person of color. He cannot hold Office,
nor can be exercise the elective franchise
nor eau he be a witness. These are conceded
facts, all Of which are essential elements in
the definition Of the word freeman. Nor is
be liable 10 poll tax. or bound 10 perform
military service. Again. the free white man
Of this State cannot expaIriaie himself if the
will Of the sovereign be opposed, and the |
public good demands that be remain. Not 30 !
with the free person of color. lie eau leave
n defiance Of the fiat OF the sovereign be-
;ause he is here at will and sufferance, and
,wes no allegiance to our government. For
hvse and many other reasons, bold that the
res dom Of u person of color in Tennessee is
qualified vested right, aud continues only
Turing the will and pleasure OF The sovereign
power OF the State. He occupi merely the
position of tenant at will, aud the State
hat of landlord. aud the State has the pow
n, upon reasonable notice, 10 terminate that i
citation. That reasonable notice is given in
his bill.
Again, another argument may be adduced
o show that ibs word freeman In the sib
;eciion Of the Bill OF Rights. does not inelud,
recmen ct eoler. 1t is this: 1t declares Ia
fleet his liberties may be taken, &c, by the
Judgment Of his peers. That means a jury,
'ad no such thing as a jury OF negroes Il
Inown in our law or Judicial practice, aud OF
0uis sc 10 one will contend jury OF whit,
men are the peers OF a negro, bOnd or ifee,
nd the whole section must be taken together
o eonstrue it, meaning. upou the whole
ave no doubt but none compose any OF the
'ody polite, aud are parties 10 the eompaci
orming our COVE Dmcnf. but free white men.
And the ire peFSotis Of color OF Tennessee
ave 40 al htS to liberty or property, except