Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1860-03-16

been disagreed to. Is there anything IN thi
restoration that should call for execratior
and vituperation ?
MIR. Benjamin said the South endeavoreC
to have that line kept sacred, but the Repub
llcan party have broken the line, and obtain
ed territory to the north of it, Now, the
South wish the line restored.
MIR. COllamer said be thought the line should
never have been broken, but the line wa:
made by the South, and he heard with great
surprise the Senator from Virginia say that
II was an act of Northern aggression. This
line was intended to settle the question in
all the territory then owned, but afterward
the South wanted Texas, and got the line put
/ across It, They then expected no more. and
/ having got all they could thev wished T.
/ break up the line and extend their system to
/ the north OF it. Why was that line obliter-
ated? The more excuses Il man make, the
more suspicious he is. The Senator from
Virginia says it was a Northern aggression
The Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglass.
suppose, would say it was because the North
was unialthful to the compact Another
| Senator says it was in violation IF
the Compromise measures OF 1850
And, last of all, one savs il
was unconstitutional all the while.
What Is meant by being true 10 the contract? ?
why, carry ng 1t out. When that line WIS
made 1t was simply meant to run through
that purchase from the French, and nothing
more. The North has alAays lulf lei ,his
contract. But it never was plrt .. lue
original contract To extend il 10 territory be-
yond tat, and when the ques.i n came m
OF territory obtained from Mexico. tn rr was
no obligation To extend the line over That ter
rltory That was free territory, and VIVA,
sort OF excuse IS 1t for a man who has made
one bargain to come again on another 0rcl-
sion and say. "ll You d. not make another
bargain. Will break up the one already
made The line was Just and proper. and
he cntended that Iere would be NJ special
danger % the South in the election OF Re
publican President. lie reviewed the urovi>-
IONS OF the Fugitive Slave act, and c5uten led
that 1t was not the same as the act IF 1893.
The law of 1860 clothes the Commi,ss
with final powers.
Mr.. Mason (Dem. va The Constitution
requires that tugitIves from service shall b.
delivered up. Does the Con stitution submit
any other question than was he hell t.
service, ana did he escape, not whether right
fully or otherwise? d?
Mr.. Cpllamer-THat does not touch the
point When a man was brought before Il
Commissioner, the question was. lis the man
a fugitive slave % if lie was. take him back.
not tor t.ial-no, tlis was his trial.
Mr.. Mason claimed that there was no
Slave State in the Union, but in which a ne.
gro would have a full and ample trial If the
claim were made that he was not a fugitive
Mr. COllamer would not make an issue on
10
hnal for all practical purposes. You might
as well say that an eating-house is free for a
man 20 get his dinner. but what good does !
that do a man has no money? He referred |
TO the speech of the Senator from Georgia, /
Mr.. Toombs) and denied that there was
any law of Vermont in conflict in anv wav /
with the Constitution Even if law hap I
pen to be, it would hardly Justify the charge
Of treason and perjury. The States. as such. /
did not adopt the Constitution the people /
had to meet and adopt it. This is National /
Government, and if the States pass an IN
constitutional law, still is is no foundation .
Tor diSsolutIen Of the Union Certainly /
there was no connection between such laws .
ind the election Of Republican Presi- .
lent. The judgment of Court .
binding on the parties in a suit The .
Scott case, and the decision Of the Supreme
Jonrt is therefore not binding on the people,
Judging from the Democratic platform in
-esard to the United States Bank, the dccis-
Ons OF the Supreme Court are not iniallible
lie claimed tnat by the Constitution, Con-
yress ha the right to regulate and govern the
Ierrtori :. and that there was no provision
n it that Congress shall not prohibit Slavery.
o. Pl Ra rrtrIt
here. because they are property, but the
Courts have decided that slaves are property
)nly by local law, and when taken out from
uch local authority that they are not prop.
,rty. You cannot take "A slave to Free
State and keep HIM or sell him. Slaves are
lot property there, So, they are not property
n the Territories where there is no local law
n reference to them. Slaves cannot be held
It common law, and were never held legally
n England. Slavery was forced on the c5l-
'nles by "A special statute against the common
aw. He quoted from the decisions OF En-
dish Courts to show that slaves are not con-
ldereG legal property But if slaves were
property, we had no right to take them into
he Territories, for the Territories do not
'elong to the several States, but to the people
If the United States Ii the Territories be-
ong to she States, each State has right to
| certain portion of the land, and if sold 70
| portion Of the money. This is not the
,ase.
Mr.. Benjamin desired to reply. He tho't
ne Senator from Vermont had made mis-
axe IN history, and wished to correct him.
The Territory of Louisiana, ACQUIRED from
france, was exclusively slave territory
When Missouri applied for admission, the
+al 81,
III was slave territory. The South, weak
md foolish, yielded half when it might have
claimed the whole. The next thing was the
acquisition of territory where there was no
slavery, and the North objected to the South
laving any share, because it was not slaye
erritory. Tn South said, continue the line
If division, and the North objected, and
hence the North broke the contract. Again,
n 1850. the North refused to abide by the
geographical line. and in 1854 went back to
he line again. Had the North carried the
Inc to the Western waters, there would have
'een no clamor to-day. The South had been
light and generous, the North extctng, ag-
sresslve, tyrannical and dcspotic. He want
ID to know if the restoration of the line
vas all the Republican party wanted ?
That party, if he understood it
vas based on hostility to Slavery. and
would never again admit Slave State. Who
vas the exponent of that party? He had tho't
The Senator would admit that these Personal
Liberty bills were wrong, but he undertook to
1efend them as passed to protect free citizens.
They were passed for no such thing, but to
keep the South from reclaiming her slaves.
de contended that if the negro was freed he
would have fair trial at the South. lie
claimed that the Government was confed-
eration of the States, and not, as the Senator
rom Vermont claims, of the people The
Senator from Vermont repeated legal heresy
in saying that slaves are not property. He
claimed that from the time that negroes first
existed in Europe. up to the time of the
Somerset case, they were always considered
as slaves. II was enough for US to know that
Slavery was recognized by the Constitution
Of the United States. II that Constitution
was ch, nged, tnen the Union would be
subverted, and the South would rath, give