Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1860-07-06

This act passed beth branches of Ceagres
witheHt yeas and nays IRthat Congress wer
three aef the tithirty- -ajneiiwhe framed the orig
inal Consultations They were John Langlos
Geo. Bead and .AbrehaHa Baldwin, They al
probably veted fer. it. Certainly they woul
have placed their opposition to it upon recos
If IN their understanding amy line dividing le
cal freaH federal authority, or snything. in tn
Constitution. properly fprhadeel the FEEDERS
Gevsrament to control as to slavery. ia fedora
Iterrstery.s5s o. yee r5 sbee-- -v!Ii2;,7..i H.,
IN l803s the Federal Government purchase.
the Leeisiana country Our former territeria
acquisitions came from cerfainsref eur owl
Staaess but this Louisiaaa eeuntry was iaequi
red from foreign nations Ins1se4sl Congress
| gassaaa aterritorisl Organization to that part, u
itaEAieh AoR constitutes the State Of Louis
lamar New Qrleansslging Within that part
was an old and comparatively large CITY,
There g9re other considerable towns and set
tleaeats, and slavery was extensively and thor
oaghly intefmingle with the people. 8 Con
gressadida daaeta III the Territorial Act, prohibit
slavery s but they did interfere with sit---take
control of fit-in a more marked and extensive
way than they did in the case of Mississippi
The Substance of the provision therein made
il relation to slaves was.s ,f, h.a .gt.s -...i
First That no slave should be imported
into the territory from foreign ports.
Second. That no slave shonld be carried in
to It who had been imported into the United
States since the first day of May.
kfhird That no slave should be carried in
to It, except by the owner, and for his own use
assassettler !; the penalty in ali1the cases being
a fine upon the Eiolator of the law, and freedom
to the slave.
This act also was passed without yeas and
nays. In the Congress which passed it, there
were twosof the ''thirty-nine.! They were
Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton
AS stated in the case of Mississippi, if is prob
able they both voted for it. They would not
have allowed it to pass without recording their
opposition to it, if in their understanding it
violatedTeither the line dividing local from
federal authority or any provision of the Con
stitution. ..-..-.-r, ST
: In 1880, came and passed the Missouri
question. Many votes were taken, by yeas
and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon
the various phases OF the general question.
Two of the sthirty -nine" Rufus King. and
Charles sPlinckney-wers members of 4hat Con-
greas- Mr.. King steadily voted for slavery
prohibition and against all compromises, while
Mr.. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery
prohibition and against all compromises. Il By
this Mr.. King showed that, in his understand
ing no line dividing local from federal author
ity, nor anything in the Constitution, was vi
oleted by Congress prohibiting slavery in fed
erat terpitory !; while Mr.. Pinckney; by his
votes, showed that in his understanding there
was some sufficient reason for opposing such
prohibition in that case.
The cases have mentioned are The only acts
Of the ''thrty-nine," or of.any of them, upon
the. direct issue, which have been able to dis
cover -l.--,,r-..,>t ,.r, f..z...... s..
TO enumerate the persons who thus acted, as
being, four in 1854, three in 1887, seventeen
IN f7as, Three IA 1898, two in 1904, and two
in 819-29-there would be thirty-one of them
But this would be counting John Langdon,
Roger Sherman, William Few. Rufus King
Baldwin, four times. The true number of the
1hirty-nine," whom 1 have shown to have
acted upon the question, which, by the text
they understood better than we is twenty
three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted
upon it in any way. .- - --. I'D.
Here then, We have twenty-three out of our
' thirty-nine fathers who framed the Govern
ment under which we live, who have, upon
their official responsibility and their corporal
oaths, acted upon the very questions which the
text afirms they understood just as well,
md ha4fn do md
ty-one of then-a clear majority of the whole
:" thirty-nine so acting upon it as to make
them guilty of gross political improperly, and
wiful 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,
farbade the Federal Government to control as
TO slavery in the federal territories. Thus the
Lwenty-one acted and, as actions speak loud
er than words, so actions under such RESPONSE
Dility speak still louder.
Two of the twenty-three voted against Con-
5ressional prohibition of slavery in the federal
Territories, in the instances in which they act
I'd upon the question. But for what reason
they so voted is not known. They may have
done SO because they thought proper division
of local from Federal authority, or some pro-
vision or principle of the Constitution, stood
in the way; or they may, without any such
questions, have voted against the prohibition,
on what appeard to them to be sufficient
GROUNDS of expediency. No one who has
sworn to support the Constitution, can con-
vote for what he understands to
be an unconstitutional measure, however ex-
ho hf,,ly h,,f nd
ought to vote against a measure which he
leems constitutional, if, at the some time, he
deems it inexpedient. 1t, therefore, would be
unsafe to set down even the two who voted
against prohibition, as having done so because
in their understanding, any proper division of
local from federal authority, or anything in the
Constitution forbade the Federal Government
to control as to savery'in the Federal Terrific
ry. he @
The remaining sixteen of the thirty -nine,"
so far as have discovered, have left no record
Of their understanding upon the direct question
Of federal control of slavery in the federal ter
ritories But there is much reason to believe
that their understanding upon that question
would not have appeared different from that of
their twenty-three compeers, had it been mani
tested at all.
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the
text, have purposely omitted whatever under
standing may have been manifested, by any per
son, however distinguished other than the thirty
nine fathers who framed tho original Constitu-
tion; and, for the same reason, 1 have also omit
led whatever understanding may have been man.
Tested by any of the "thirty-nine,' ''eveu, on any
other phase of the general question of slavery If
we should look into their acts and declarations
IN these phases. as the foreign slave-trade, and
The morality and policy of slavery generally,
i would appear to us that on the question of
ederal control of slavery in federal territories,
.he sixteen, if they had acted at all, would
probably have acted just as the, twenty-three
lid. Among the sixteen were several of the
most noted anti-slavery men of those times
a Dr. Franklin 4 leXander Hamilton and