The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-03-02

Minnssota ~ . Gummer Resort, and
Senator Stewards Views ON = Ques-
tien Pertinent Thereto.
The Republicans Of this State, in their
State Convention, have endorsed WV. H.
SEWARD. of New York, as their choice for
the Presidency. We are glad Of it. First
", because SEWARD is the weakest of all
possible or probable candidates, except
BUCHANAN and secondly, because the Re-
publicans of this State having expressed
their admiration Of the talents, statesman
ship, and principles of the New York Sena-
tor, will doubtless join with us, in an at
tempt to perform graceful act Of comfy
to the Southern States of the Union, which
has the singular merit of having met the
public approval and warm commentator
of Mr.. SEWARD.
Until May, l841, there existed on the
statute books of the State of New York the
following law:
6. Any person not being an inhabitant of this
State, who shall be travelling to or from, or
passing through this State, may bring with him
any person lawfully held by him in slavery,
and may take such person with him from this
State, bit the person so held in slavery shall
not reside or continue in this State more than
nine months, and if such residence be contin-
ned beyond that time, such person shall be
free.
Z. Any person who, or whose family shall
oil q moi nf tho in
of the year in any other State, may remove and
bring with him or them, from time to time,
any person lawfully held by him in slavery,
into this State, and may carry such person with
him or them out of this State.
1t will be seen that this law gave to
Southern men the right to visit New York,
with their servants, and legalized the rela.
tion of master and slave for period of nine
months. 1t also gave to shareholders the
right of transit through that State, with
their property. The law was regarded as
an act of comfy and good fellowship, en-
inently appropriate in confederation of
sovereign States, united under federal form
of government, for purposes of mutual bene-
fit. But for three or four years prior to
1s4l, an attempt was made by the Adolf
tionists to secure the repeal of the law
and the aid of WIN. H. SEWARD was in>
voked to that end. Mr.. SEWARD, in 1888,
and in letter to GERRITT SMITH and WIN.
JOY, gave his views on the subject, as fol-
lows:
nxa E auburn, October %, 1888.
GENTLEMEN-Your letter proposing to me
certain questions in behalf of numerous meet
ing of my fellow citizens at Utica has been re.
ceived.
But the courts of law in this State have uni
formly given Q different construction to the
| same article of the constitution, and have al
ways decided that it does embrace the case of
the slave brought by his master into this State
and escaping from him here. Consequently
under this judicial construction of the constitu-
ton and without and in defiance of any law or
| regulation of this State, if the Slave escapes
| from his master in this State, he must be re.
stored to him, when claimed at any time during
his masters temporary sojournment within the
State, whether that adjournment be six months,
nine months or longer.
The law, as I understand it, therefore, was
| intended to fix period of time as test of tran
silent passage through, or temporary residence
in this State, within the provisions of the con-
stitution. The duration of nine months is not
material in the question and if it be unnecessa-
rily long, it may be and ought to be abridged.
But If no such law existed, the right of the
master (under the construction of the constitu-
ton before mentioned) would be indefinite. and
SEES Of travelling through, or passage to or from
the State.
If have correctly apprehended the subject,
this law is not one comforting the right upon
any person to import slaves into the State and
hold them here as such but is an attempt at
restriction upon the constitutional right of the
master, qualification, or at least definition
of it, and is in favor of the slave. Its repeal,
therefore, would have the effect to pat into
greater jeopardy the class of persons you pro-
pose to benefit by it. While the construction
of the constitution adopted here is maintained,
the law,.it would seem, ought to remain upon
our statute books, not as an encroachment up
on the rights of man, but protection for them.
But, gentlemen, being DESTROYS to be entirely
candid in this communication. it is proper |
should add that l am not convinced that it
would be either wise, expedient or humane to
declare to our.fellew citizens of the Southern
and Southwestern States. that if they travel to
| or FROM or pass through the State of New York,
| they shall not bring with them the attendants
! whom custom, or education, or habit may have
rendered necessary to them: l have not been
| able to discover any good object to be attained
| by such an act of inhospitality. 1t certainly
| can work no injury to US, nor can it be injuri.
| GUS to the unfortunate beings held in bondage,
to permit them once perhaps in their lives, and
| at most, on occasions few and far between to
visit country where slavery is unknown.
can conceive of benefits to the great cause of
human liberty from the cultivation of this inter-
| course.
l will not press the consid erations flowing
| from the nature of our Union, and the mutual
concessions on which it was founded, against
the propriety of such an exclusion as your
question contemplates, apparently for the pur-
pose only of avoiding an implication not found
ed in fact, and which the history of our State
so noby contradicts. 1t is sufficient to say that
such an exclusion could have no good effect
practically, AMI would accomplish nothing in
the great cause OF human liberty.
Now, we submit to the Legislature
whether the passage at this time, OF an act
permitting our Southern brethren to visit
Minnesota, with their servants, for period
of three, six or nine months, and protecting
them from the misguided zeal of fanatics,
would not be expedient and just; it would
certainly be an act of comfy and good will