Randolph County journal. [volume] (Winchester, Randolph County, Ind.) 1855-1862, 1860-08-09

people. Congress did not, I'm the ter
ritorial 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 Mis-
sissippi.
The substance of the provision
therein made in relation to slaves was:
First, That no slave should be inn
ported into the Territory from foreign
parts.
Second. That no slave should be
carried into it who had been imported
into the States since the 1St day of
Nav. 1893.
Third, That no slave should be car
ried into it. except by the owner, and
for his own use as a settler; the pen
atty in all cases being a fine upon the
violator of the law and freedom to the
slave.
This act also was passed without
yeas or nays. In the Congress which
passed it there were two of the 'thir-
ty-nine.' They were Abraham Bald
win and Jonathan Dayton. AS stated
in the case of Mississippi, it is proba-
bic they both voted for it. They
would not have allowed it to pass
without recording their opposition to
it if, in their understanding, it violated
either the line properly dividing local
from federal authority or any provis
ion of the Constitution. Many votes
were taken by yeas and nays, in both
branches Of Congress, upon the vari-
ous phases of the general question.
Two of the thirty e'-Rufus King
and Charles Pinckney-were members
of that Congress. Mr.. King steadily
voted for slavery prohibition and
against all compromises, while Mr..
Pinkney as steadily voted against sla-
very prohibition, and against all COM
promises. By..this, Mr.. King showed
that. in his understanding. no line
dividing local from federal authority,
nor any thing in the Constitution, was
| violated by Congress prohibitidg sla-
very in the federal territory; while
Mr.. Pinckncy, by his votes, showed
that, in his understanding, there was
some sufficient reason for opposing and
prohibition in that case.
The cases | have mentioned are the
only acts of the thirty nine, or any of
them, upon the direct issue, which /
have been able to discover. To emu
merate the persons who thus acted. as
being four in 1854, three in l1S7, sew
enteen in 1889, three in 1868. two in
1904. and two In lSlS-20-there
would be thirty one of thea. But this
would be counting John Langdon,
Roger Sherman, William Few, Rnfus
King and George Reed. each twice,
and Abraham Baldwin four times.
He was Georgian, too. The true
number o! those of the 'thirty-nine'
whom | have shown TO have acted
upon the question. which. by the text
they understood better than we, is
twenty-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
aliilms they understood ust as well
and even better than we do now and
twenty .one of them-a clear majority
of the whole thirty nine'-so acted
upon it as to make them guilty OF
gross political improperly and will
ful perjury, it, in th IL understanding
any proper division between local and
federal authority, 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
Thus the twenty one acted; and ac'
tions speak louder than words, SC
actions under such responsibility speak
still louder. Two Of the twenty-thrc,
voted against the Congressional pro-
hibition of slavery in the Federal Ter.
ritorics, in the instances in which
they acted upon the question. Blu,
for what reason they so voted is not
known. They may have done so be
cause they thought a proper division
of local from Federal authority, ol
some provision or principle of the Con
slituton, stood in the way; or the,
may. without any such question. hav,
voted against the prohibition, on wha
appeared to them to be sufiicien
grounds of expcdicncy.
No one who has sworn to suppor
the Constitution can conscientiousl,
! vote for what he understands 10 be M
unconstitutional measure, however ex
pedient he may think it: but one ma,
and ought to- vote against measure
{ which he deems constitutional. if a
the same time, he deems il inexpedient
II. therefore. would be uns ,te to Sc
down even the two who voted agains
the prohibition, as having done so be
! cause. in their understanding. an,
proper division of local from Fedora
authority. or any thing in the Consti
tuition, forbade the Federal Govern
ment to control rs TO slavery in Fed
| eral Territory. The remaining six
D teen of the thiIty-nine.' so far as
have discovered. have left no record o
their understanding upon the direc
e question Of federal control Of SLAYER,
| in the Federal Territories.
9 But there is much reason TO believ
+. that their understanding upon tina
: question wonld not have appeared diff
J erent from shat of their twenty-thre
D compeers. had it been manifested a