Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1860-06-15

I
| cal and federal authority or anything in the
Constitution they had made themselves and
sworn 20 support, forbade the Federal Govern
ment to control as to slavery in the Federal
Territories. lCheers Thus the twenty-nne
acted; and actions speak louder than words, so
| actions under such responsibility speak still
louder. Two Of the twenty-three voted against
the Congressional prohibition of slavery in the
Federal Territories, in the instances in which
they acted upon the question. But for what
reason they SO voted s not known They may
have done so because they thought proper di-
vision of local from Federal authority, or some
provision or principle of the Constitution, sleod
IN the way; or they may, without any such ques-
ton, have voted against the prohibition, on
/ what appeared to them TO be sufficient grounds
OF expedleBcy.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OATH 70 SUPPORT
THE CONSTITUTION
| No one who has sworn to support tae Con-
stitution can conscieutious.y vote for what be
! understands to be az unconstitutional measure,
| however expedient he may think it; but one
may and ought to vote against measure which
he deems constitutional, if, at tne same time,
he deems it inexpedient. 1t, therefore, would
| be unsafe to set down even the two who voted
against the prohibition, as having done so be-
cause, in their understanding, and proper diVis-
lon of local from Federal authority, or anything
in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Gov
ernment to control as to slavery in Federal
| Territory. Laughter and prolonged appause.l
| The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nne," SO
| far as | have discovered, have left no record of
/ their understanding upon the direct question of
federal control of slavery in the Federal Terri
| tories.
| But there is much reason to believe that their
understanding upon that question would not
have appeared different from that of their twea-
| ty-three compeers, had it been manifested at
| all. For the purpose of adhering rigidlg to
the text, have purposeIy omitted whatever
understanding may have been manifested, by
any person, however distinguished, other than
the ,hirty-nine fathers who framed the original
Constitution; and, for the same reason, / have
also omitted whatever understanding may have
been manifested By any Of the ssthirty-nines
| even, on any other phase Of the general aues-
ton of slavery. If Wa should look into their
acts and declarations on those other phases, as
the foreign slave trade, and the morality and
policy, of slavery generally, it would appear
to US that on the direct question of federal con.
troll of slavery in the Federal Territories, the
bly, have acted just as the twenty three did.
ANTI-sLAvERY MEN OF TIE LAST CENTURY.
Among that sixteen were several of The most
noted anti-slavery men of those times-as DR..
Franklin, tcheers,) Alexander Hamilton, Cow
erneur Morris while there was not one now
known to have been otherwise, unless it may be
John Rutledge, of South Carolina. [Appl4use.l
The sum of the whole is, that of our 'stbirty-
niue" fathers who framed the original Cousti-
tuition, twenty one-a clear majority of the
whole certainly understood that no proper di-
vision of local from federal authority, nor any
part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to coutrol slavery in the Federal
Territories, while all the rest, probably, had
the same understanding. Such, unquestona-
bly,, was the understanding of our fathers who
framed the original Constitution; and the text
afirms that they understood the question better
than we. daughter and cheers.l
But, so far | have been considering the un-
derstanding of the question manifested by the
trainers of the original constitution. Iu and
by the original instrument mode was provided
| for amending it; ano, as have already stated,
the present frame of government undor which
we live consists of that original, aud twelve
smendatory articles framed and adopted since
Those who now insist that federal control of
slavery in Federal Territories violates the Con-
| stltution, point us to the provisions which they
suppose it thus violates; and, as | understand,
they all fix upon provisions in these amenda-
tory articles, aud not in the original instru-
ment.
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE DRED SCOTT
CASE.
The Supreme Court, in lhe Dred Scott case,
plant themselves upon the 6fth amendment,
which provides that 'no person shall be depr-
we'd of property without due process OF law"
while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adhe-
rents plant themselves upon the tenth amend
ment, providing that "the powers not granted
| by the Constitution, are reserved to the States
respectively, and to the people," Now, it SO
happens that these amendments we're framed by
| the first Congress which sat under the Consti-
tution--the identical Congress which passed
the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohi-
bition of slavery in the Northwestern Terrific
ry. [Applause. Not only was it the same
| Congress, but they were tho Identical, same in
1 dvidual men who, at the same session, at the
same time within the session, had under con-
sideration, and in progress toward maturity,
these Constitutional amendments, and this act
prohibiting slavery in all the Territory the ma
! tion then owned.
The constitutional amendments were intro
duced before and passed after the act of en-
forcing the ordinance of '87; so that during the
whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordi-
nance the constitutional amendments we're also
pending. That Congress, consisting in all of
seventy-six members, including sixteen of the
trainers Of the original Constitution, as before
stated, were pve-eminently our fathers who
framed that part of the government under
which we live, which is now claimed as forbid
ding the Federal Government to control slavery