Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1860-06-14

- 10 MAKE tnem1Eunty ot grozs pOltica
improperly and wilIfol perjury, II, 10 thei
understanding, any proper division between
local and federal suthority, or anything il
the Constitution they had made themselves
and sworn to support, forbade the Feders
Government to control 80 to slavery In tn,
federal territories. Thus the twenty .on
acted; and, as actions speak louder thai
words, so actions under such responsibilit,
speak still louder.
Two Of the twenty.three voted sgsins
Congressional prohibition OF slavery ia Ii,
federal territories. in the instances in which
they acted upon the question. But for " bs
reason they so voted is not known. The,
may have done so because they thought
proper division OF local from Federal author
ity, or some provision or principle OF tht
Constitution, stood 10 the way; or they MAY
without any such question, have votet
against the prohibition, on what appeared
TO them to be sufiicient grounds of expedi.
ency. No one who has sworn to support the
Constitution can consc icntiously vote for
what he understands to be an uncons'i,u.
tional measure, however expedient he may
think it; but one may end ought to vote
against a measure which he deems consti-
tutional, if at the same time, he deems i,
expedieDt. IL, therefore, would be unsafe
to set drwn even the two who voted against
prohibition. as having done 50 because in
their understanding any proper Division of
local from federal authority, or anything In
the Constitution forbade the Federal Gov
ernment to control az TO slavery ~ Fedora
Territory.
The remaining sixteen Of the 'thirty. mine
so far as l have discovered, have left no
record Of their understanding upon the di-
rect question Of federal control OF slavery in
the federal territories. But there 10 much
reason to believe that their understandn
upon that question would not have appeared
different from that of their twenty three
compeers, had it been manifested at all.
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the
text, have purposely omitted whatever un.
derstanding may have been manifested, by
any person, however distinguished, other
than the ",hirty. mine" fathers who framed
the original Constitutions and, for the same
reason, have also omitted whatever nnder.
standing may have been manifested by any
Of the "thiriy-nine," even, on any other
phase of the general question Of slavery II
we should look into their acts and dec lara
tions on these phases, as the foreign slave.
trade, and the morality ard policy Of slavery
generally, it would appear to US that on the
direct question OF federal control of slavery
in federal territories, the sixteen, If they had
acted at all, would probably have acted just
as the twenty-three di d. Among the six
teen were several Of the most noted anti
slavery men Of those tmes--as DR.. Frank.
lin, Alexander Hamilton and Goyerno. Nor
ris-whle there was not one now known to
have been otherwise, unless it may be John
Rutledge, of South Carolina.
The sum of the whole is, that of our .thir-
ty nine fathers who framed the original
Constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority
Of the whole, certainly understood that no
proper division of local from federal author.
ity, nor any part of the Constitution, for
bade the Federal Government to control
slavery in the federal territories. while all
the rest, probably, had the same understand.
ing. Such. uaquestionably, was the UNDER
standing of our fathers who framed the
original Constitution, and the text affirms
that they understand the subject better than
we.
But, so far. I have been considering
the understanding Of the question manifest.
ed by the framers Of the original Constitu-
tion. IL and BY the original instrument, u
mode was provided for amending it, and, as
l have already stated, the present frame of
that orginal,and twelve amendsto-y articles
framed end adopted since. Those who now
insist that federal control Of slavery in fed
eral territories violates the Constitution,
point US to the provisions which they sup
pose it thus violates, and, as | understand.
they all fix upon provisions in these amec-
datory articles, and not in the original in
strument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred
Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth
amendment, which provides that mo person
shall be deprived of property without due
process of law;" while Senator Douglas and
his peculiar sdherents plant themselves up.
on the tenth amendment. providing that the
powers not granted by the Consti ution are
reserved to the States respectively, and TO
the people,"
Now it SO happens that these amendments
were framed by the first Congress which
sat under the Constitution--the Identical
Congress which passed The act already men,
toned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery
in the N,rth- Western territory. Not only
was it the same Congress, but they were the
identical, same individual men who, at the
same session, and at the same time within
the sassion had under consideration, ard in
progress toward maturity, these Constitu-
tional amendments and this act prohibiting
slavery in all the terr itory the nation then
owned. The Constitutional amendments
vese introduced before, and passed after the
act enforcing the ordinance of 's7; SO that
during the whole tendency of the act to eu-
force the ordinance, the constitutional
amendments were also pending.
That congress, consisting in all of rs
members, including sixteen of the trainers
Of the original constitution, as before stated
were preeminently our fathers who framed
that part Of the Government under which
we live, VIII ich is now claimed as forbid
n. n N II