The Tiffin weekly tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1859-1868, 1860-09-28

pc0lcd because the crimes of ROBBERY
murder, arson, Sc, are daily committed
notwithstanding the existence OF these
laws Would they repeal the LAWS pro-
hibitng the slave trade, because these
laws fail to entirely suppress the traffic
In human flesh.
Or is it triic, a. We have reason Ia
suspect, that this kind Of pretended ar
gument is now introduced for the very
purpose Of preparing the way for the re.
peal of the laws making that trade pira-
cyl
. We shall not be ustonishcd 10 hear
these gentlemen In company with Mr..
Douglas arguing tot people that as the
laws Of Congress prohibiting the slave
trade do not prevent the traffic, therefore
Congress has no power 10 pass such laws.
To this complexion will IL come OF last.
In answer TO the opinion Of these Bu.
cyrus lawyers, that Ohio, Indiana, and IL
linois do not owe their freedom from the
institution Of African Slavery to tho or
dinoncc of 1851 we will cite the opinions
Of somc Of the statesmen Of an earlier
day in the history Of our republic, who
had The opportunity of observing the
course Of events during the early settle.
ment Of these territories.
In 1903 General Harrison was Govern.
or Of the then territory Of Indiana, inclu-
ding whot are now the States of Indiana
and Illinois. A convention Of the pco.
pie ofthe territory held at viuccnnes,
over which General Harrison presided,
pctitioucd Congress to suspend the opc-
ration Of the 9Th article of the Ordinance
Of 1887 for period Of 10 years Thls
petition had been rofcrCd 10 committee
Of which John Randolph was chairman
and the committee made q unanimous re-
port against suspension or repeal Of the
prohibition. The people Of the tcrrito-
ries still insisting through their terrific
rial Legislature upon a temporary suspcn-
sion Of the law, on the 18th day orDc-
cembcr A. d. 1905 the mutter was again
referred to a select committee off, Of
which Mr.. Garnet was chairmuin. On
The lith day Of February sOG he submit
ted a report to the House Of Representa-
tvcs, from which we make the following
extract. This repor, recommended a
suspension Of the prohibition. The com
mittoo say:
"The good effects of this suspension in
the present instance would be to accel-
crate the population of that territory
hitherto retarded by the operation Of that
article Of compact, as shareholders emf
grating into the Western country might
then indulge any preference which they
might feel for a settlement in the Indi-
ana territory, instead of seeking, as they
are now compelled to do, settlements in
other states or countries permitting the
introduction of slaves"
Hero we have tho opinion Of seven
members Of Congress who were especial
ly appointed to investigate that very
question, and who made their invosuga-
tons while the early settlement ofthcse
countries was progressing, that slave
holders were compelled by the 9th urti-
Gle Of the compoct of 1887 to SO k settle
ments in other states or countries per-
mittng the Introduction of slavery, and
that the settlement Of these territories by
shareholders was retarded by the opera
ton of the same law.
Had the prohibition been suspended as
recommended by the committee for 10
years, it would not have been in force
whom the people of the territory adopted
state constitution. And no sane man
can deny that if the territories had been
thrown open to the settlement of slave
holders, as was desired by the inhabitants
they would have constituted majority
in the year 1915 when State constitu-
ton was frumed, and being in a majority
they would have done ns they did in Mis-.
souri, 5yeHrs later, they would have adopt
ed a constitution lcgalizng slavery, and
made of Indiana and Illinois slave, in
stead Of free stutcs
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri lie
mainly in the same latitude. Their soil,
climate and productions are mainly the
same. They afford precisely the same
inducements TO slave labor, which would
be just as proftable'in the cornfelds of
Ohio as in the cornfeds Of Missouri.
Now, how does it happen, that Ohio,
Indiana and Illinois are free States,
while Missouri is Slave stOtel The
question is easily answered. A law Of
Congress protected the three former
states, and there was no such law pro-
tecting the latter, The slave owners,
who were compelled by the Gth urticle
Of the compact of 1887 to "scck settle
ments in other states or countries permit
ting the introduction of slaves" settled
in Missouri. They were compelled, by
the operation of the far seeing policy Of 3
Jefferson, to pass on beyond the North
Territory, which had been Sc
cured as a home for free laborers, to the I
Louisiana purchase, oyerwhich there was q
no restriction. !
The dogma that "thc Constitution ,
places property in slaves on the sumo 4
'asis as other property" had not yet I
'een discovered. There were TOO many 4
ramers Of the Constitution then living, /