The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1860-06-13

bis understanding. no line dividing local
authority, nor anything in the Constitution.
forbade the Federal Government, to con-
troll as to slavery in the Federal Territory.
No great while after the adoption Of the
original Constitution, North Carolina ceded
to the Federal Government the country now
constituting the State of Tennessee {; and
a few years later Georgia ceded that
which now constitutes the States Of Missis-
sippi and Alabama. In both deeds of
cession it was made condition by the ced.
ing States that the Federal Government
should not prohibit slavery in the ceded
country Besides this. slavery was then
actually in the ceded country. Under
these circumstances, Congress, on taking
charge of these countries, did not absolute
ly prohibit slavery within them. But they
did interfere with it-take control Of it
even there, to q certain extent. In 1898,
Congress organized the territory of Missis-
sippi In the act Of organization. they pro-
hibited the bringing of slaves into the Ter
ritory, from any place without the United
States, by fine. and giving freedom to slaves
SO brought. This act passed both branches
of Congress without yeas and nays. In
that Congress were three Of the thirty
nine who framed the original Constitu-
ton. They were John Langdon. George
Reed and Abraham Baldwin. They all,
probably. voted for it, Certainly they
would have placed their opposition to it up
on record, if, in their understanding, any
line dividing local from Federal authority.
or anything in the Constitution, properly
forbade the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in federal territory.
In 1903, the Federal Government pur-
chased the Louisiana country. Our former
territorial acquisitions came from certain of
our own States; but this Louisiana coun-
try was acquired from foreign nation. In
1904, Congress gave territorial organiza.
tion to that part of it which constitutes the
State of Louisiana. New Orleans. within
that part, was an old and comparatively
large city. There were other towns and
considerable settlements, and Slavery was
extensively and thoroughly intermingled
with the people. Congress did not, in the
Territorial 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 Mississippi. The
substance of the provision therein made. in
relation to slaves, was:
1st That no slave should be imported
into the Territory from foreign parts.
ID That no slave should be carried in.
to it who had been imported into the Uni
ted States since the first day Of May. ,179S.
3d. That no slave should be carried in
to it. except by the owner. and for his own
use as settler; the penalty in all the ca.
ses being fine upon the violator of the
law, and freedom to the slave.
This act was also passed without yeas
and nays. In the Congress which passed
it, there were two Of the thirty-nine. u
They were Abraham Baldwin and JOhna.
than Dayton. As stated in the case Of
Mississippi, it is not probable they both
voted for it. They would not have allowed
it to pass without recording their opposi
ton to it, if, in their understanding, it vio
lated either the line proper dividing local
from federal authority or any provision o.
the Constitution.
In 1sl9-2O, came and passed the Miss
ouri question Many votes were taken, by
yeas and nays, in both branches of Con
gress, upon the various phrases Of the gen
eral question. Two of the thirty nine ,
Rufus King and Charles Pickney-
were members of that Congress. Mr.
King steadily voted for Slavery prohibition
and against all compromises, while Mr.
Pinckney, as steadily voted Sgainst slavery
prohibition and against all compromises
By this Mr.. King showed that, in his un
derstanding, no line dividing local from
federal authority, nor anything in ths
Constitution, was violated by Congress pro
hibiting Slavery in federal territory; whil
Mr.. Pinckney. by his votes. showed that il
his understanding there was some sufiicien
reason for opposing such prohibition in tina
case
The cases have mentioned are the on
ly acts of the thirty y-nine." or any of them
upon the direct issue, which l have beel
able to discover.
To enumerate the persons who thus &C
ted, as being four in 1884, three in l70s
two in 1904, and two in 1Sl9-20-ther
would be thirty.one of them. But thi
would be counting John Langdon, Roge
Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, an
George Reed. each twice, and Abraham
Baldwin four times. The true number {
those of the 'thirty-nine whom l hav
shown to have acted upon tie question
which, by the text they understood bette
than We, is twenty-three, leaving sixtee
not shown to have acted upon it in an
! way.
Here, then, We have twenty.three out
/ our thirty nine fathers who framed II
| Government under which We live, wi
, have, upon their official responsibility an
their corporal oaths, acted upon the vel
question which the text affirms they "ur
: derstood just as well, and even best,
: than We do now ;" and twenty -one of the
: "a clear majority of the whole "thir.
: nine so acting upon it as to make the
guilty of gross political improperly, az
J, w;llful perjury. if, in their understandin
: any proper division between local and fe
q eral authority, or anything in the Constt
I ton they had made themselves. and swo