Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-05-23

/ slgneu lne Dllii thu5 oOuiPietlnB us Nallulty
as a law, and thus showing that, in his un-
derstanding no line dividing local from fed
eral authority, nor anything in the Constitu-
ton, forbade the Federal Government to con-
troll as to slavery in Federal Territory. Cloud
applause No great while after the adoption
of the original Constitution, North Carolina
ceded TO the Federal Government the country
now constituting the State Of Tennessee; /;
and, few years later, Georgia ceded that
which now constitutes the States of Missis-
sippi and now constitutes the States Of Mis-
sissippi and Alabama In both deeds of
cession, it was made condition by the ced-
ing States that the Federal Government should
not prohibit slavery in the ceded country
Under these circumstances, Congress, on TAX
ing charge of these countries, did not absolu-
tely prohibit slavery within them.
Congress did Interfere. ...c
But they did interfere with it-taks con-
troll ofit-even there, to a certain extent. In
| 1898 Congress organized the Territory of
Mississippi. In the act Of organization they
prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Ter
ritory, from any place without the United
States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves
80 brought. This act passed both branches of
Congress without yeas and nays. In that
Congress were three ofthe "thirty-nine who
framed the original Constitution. They were
John Langdon, George Read and Abraam Bald
win. They all, probably, voted for it. Ger
tainly they would have placed their opposi-
tiOn to it upon record if, in their understand
ing, any line diyidiag local and federal au-
thority, or anything in the Constitution pro-
perly forbade the Federal Government to con-
troll as to slavery in Federal Territory (Ap-
plause.)
In 1903 the Federal Government purchased
the Louisiana country. Our former Ter
ritorial acquisitions came from certain of our
own States, but this Louisiana country was
acquired from a foreign nation. In 1904
Congress gave a Territorial organization to
that part of it which now constitutes the
State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying
within that part, was an old and compara-
lively large city. There were other consd-
erable towns and settlements, and slavery was
extensively and thoroughly intermingled
with the people. Congress did not, in the
Territorial act prohibit slavery; but they did
interfere with it-take control of tin a
more marked and extensive way than they
did in the case of Mississippi
The Louisiana PrOvisO.
The substance ofthe provision therein made
in relation to slaves was:-
First, That no slave should be imported
into the Territory from foreign parts.
Second, That no slave should be carried
into it who had been imported into the States
since the first day of May, 1898.
Third, That no slave should be carried
into it, except by the owner, and for his own
use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases
being a fine upon the violator of the law and
freedom to the slave. Prolonged cheers. J
This act also was passed without yeas or
nays. In the Congress which passed it, there
were two of the "thirty-nine" They were
Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As
stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable
they both voted for it. They would not have
allowed It to pass without recording their op-
position TO it, if in their understanding, it
violated either the line properly dividing
local from federal authority or any provision
Of The Constitution. Many votes were taken,
by yeas and nays, in both branches of Con-
gTess, upon the various phases of the general
question. Two the "thirty y-nine. Rufus
King and Charles PinclOney-were members
of that Congress. Mr.. King steadily voted
for slavery prohibition and against all COM
promises while Mr.. Pinckney as steadily
voted against slavery prohibition, and against
all compromises. (Cheers.) 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 Ter
ritory while Mr.. Pinckney, by his votes,
showed that, in his understanding, there was
some sufficient reason for opposing and pro-
hibition in that case.
The Fathers ON Record.
The cases / have mentioned are the only
acts of the "thirty mine, or any OF them, upon
the direct issue, which have been able to
discover. To enumerate the persons who
thus acted, as being four in 1884, three in
1881, seventeen in 1889, three in 1898, two
in 1904, and two in lSl9-2O-there would
} be thirty-one of them. But this would be
counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman,
William Few, Rufus King and George Reed,
each twice, and Abraham Baldwin four times
lApplause He was Georgian, too. RE-
newed applause and laughter The true
number of those of the "thirty-nine'' whom
have shown to have accted upon the ques-
ton, which, by the text they understood better
than we, is tBenty-three, leaving sixteen not
TO have acted upon it in any way. Here,
then, we have twenty-three of our |thirty-
nine fathers who framed the government
under which we live, who have, upon their
official responsibility and their corporal oaths,
acted upon the very question which the text
affirm they understood just as well and
even better than we do now, - and tWenty-one
of them-a clear majority of the whole "thir-
ty-nine' $50 acted upon it as TO make them
guilty of gross political impropriety and will
full perjury, if, in their understanding any
proper division between local and federal au-
thority, or anything in the Constitution they
had made themselves and sworn TO support,
forbade the Federal Government to control as
to slavery in the Federal Territories TCheers.
Thus the twenty-one acted; and actions speak
louder than words, so actions under such re-
sponsibility speak still louder. Two of the
twenty-three voted against the Congressional
prohibition of slavery in the Federal Terrific
ries, in the instances in which they acted upon
: the question. But for what reason they so
voted is not known. They may have done
so because they thought a proper division OF
local from Federal authority, or some provis-
ion or principle of the Constitution, stood in
the way; or they may, without any such
question, have voted against the prohibition,
on what appeared to them to be sufficient
grounds of expediency.
The Responsibility Of the Oath 30 Support
the Constitution.
No one who has sworn to support the Con-
, stitution can eonscientiously vote for what
he understands to be an unconstitutional
measure, however expedient he may think it;
but one may and ought to vote against a
measure which be deems constitutional, if, at
the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It,
therefore, would be unsafe 10 set down even
the two who voted against the prohibition,
as having done 50 because, in their under
standing, and proper division of local from
Federal authority, OF any thing in the Con-
stitution, forbade the Federal Government
to control as to slavery in Federal Territory.
daughter and prolonged applause.J The
remaining sixteen of the thirty-nine," so
far as have discovered, have left no record
of their understanding upon the direct ques-
tion of federal control of slavery in the Fed