, 1860-03-02

the provision therein nude, in relation to slaves
Firs-Tbat no slave should bc imported into
the Territory from foreign parts.
Seoond-That no slave should be carried into
il who had been imported into tho United
States since the first day Of Afay, 179s.
11ird-That no slaye should DO carried into
it, except by the owner, and for his own use as
upon the violator Of tho law, aud freedom to
tile slave. 49,. ;.
This act also was pissed without Yeas and
Nays. In the Congress which passed it, there
were two Of the thirty. nine" They were
Abraham baldwin and Jona!lan Dayton; As
they both voted for it. They would not hare
allowed it to pass without recording their op-
position 10 it, II, in their understanding, it yio
lated either the line properly dividing local from
Federal authority OF any provision Of the Con-
In 1s19.eo. came, and passed, tho Missouri |
question. Muny votes were taken, by Yeas aud |
Nnys in both branches Of Congress. upon the |
various phases Of the general question. Two |
Of the "t!irty. ty.nine"-llutus King and Charles
pinckney-werc members Of tnat Congress.
Mr.: King steadily voted for slavery. prohibition
Us stendily voted against slavery prohibition,
aud against all compromises. By this Mr..
King ssinwcd that, IN his understanding, no
line Dividing local from Federal authority, nor
anything in the Constitution, was violated Ly
Congress prohibiting Slavery in Federal Terri
tory; while Mr. Pinckney, BY his votes, showed
TINT in his understanding there was some
sufficient reason fur opposing such prohibition
in that case.
SUMMARY or THE FAcTs-CoScLrsloS 1nREsls11-
BILE.
The cases have mentioned arc the only acts
Of the " thirty-pine," or Of uny Of them, upon
The direct issue, which tlve been able to dis.
cover. To enumeratc the persons who thus
acted, as being four in 17S4, three in l7o7, se:-
euteen in 1859, three in 1873, TWO in 1904, and
two in 1sl9-.o-theIe would be thirty one of
them. But this would be counting John Lang
don Roger Sherman, William Few, llufus Hing,
and George Read; each twice, and Abraham
Baldwin four times. The true number Of those
Of the thirty y-pine" whom ! hare 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
| ty-thrcc Of our "thirty nine" fathers who
| framed tue Government under which We lire,
who have, upon their official responsibility und
| their corporal oatha, acted upon the very ques.
| tion which the text atlirn,s they understood
just as well, aud even better, than We do now; =
and twenty y-one Of ,hem-a cIear majority ofthe
whole "thirty. acting upon il as to
make them guilty oil gross political impropr1"-
ty, anu wilfnl perjury, if. in their understand
ing, uny proper division between local aud fede-
ral authority, or anything in the Constitution
they had made themselves, and sworn to sup
port, bade the federal government uo control
Us to slavery in the Federal Territories. THUS
the twenty-one acted; and as actions speak
louder than words, So actions under such re-
sponsibility speak still louder. Two Of the twcn-
three voted against Congressional prohibition
Of slavery in the federal Territories, in the in-
stances il which they acted upon the question.
But for what reasons they SO yotcd is pot
known. They may have done SO because they
thought proper division Of local from Federal
authority, or some provision or principle OF the
Constitution stood in the way; or they nlay,
without any such question, have voted against
the prohibition, on what appeared to Them 10 be
sufficient grounds Of expediency. No one who
has sworn to support the Constitution can Gull
scieutlousy vote Tor what lie understands to be
| IN unconditional measure, however c1pelient
he may tllinkit; but one may and ought to vote
against i measure which he deems coust'tu.
tional, IT, at the same time, he declns il inexpc.
| dent. 1t, therefore, would be unsafe to set
down even the two who voted against the pro
l,ibiton, az having done so because, in their ua'
deratandi x, any proper division Of loc.l from
Federul authority, or anything iu the Constitu
tioa, forbade the Federal Government to contro
| Is TO slavery in the Federal Territory.
The remaining sixteen Of the 'tthirty nine, ," SC
far Us hare discovered, have left no record o
their understanding upou the direct question q
Federal control Of slavery in tile Federal terrific
ries. But there is much reason 10 believe tha
their understandingupon that question would no
{ huye appeared different frum that Of their TWEEN
ty-llree compecrs, lad it been manifested IL
all Fur the purpose Of adhcring rigidly to th'
| text, have purposely omitted wnateycr under
standing muy Aaye been manifested, by HI,
person, however distinguished, other than til
thirty-ninc fathers who framed the orig ginal Con
sttutiun; and, for the same reason, hare als'
omitted whatever misunderstanding. may hay
been manifested by my Of the "1lairty nine
even, on any other phuse of the general ques
t ton Of slavery. If We should look into thei
: acts aud declarations Oh those other phases, u
+ the foreign slave trade, and the morality an
: policy OF slavery generally, it would appear t
r Us that on the direct question Of Federal cor
: troll of slavery in Federal Territories, the sia
I teen, if they lad acted ut all, would probubl
: have acted Just as the twenty-three did Anon
t that sixteen were several Of the most note
anti-slayery men Of those tiales--as Ur Fsaill
lin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouvcrneur Mo-
ris--wllle there was not one now known I
e have been otherwise, unless it may be John Ru
q ledge OF South Carolina. Tie sum Of the who
$ is, i:ut Of our thirty. nne' fathers who franc
|, the Original Constitution, twenty one--a Gle:
u minority of the whole- certainly uuderstoc
: sl1at no proper division Of local from FeGer
IS authority, nor any part Of tue Constitution. 70
II b1de tie Federal Government to control slay
~ in the Federal Territories; while NIL the re
; probably had the same understanding. Such, ii
: questionably, was the understanding Of .,
c tathers who framed the original Constitution
r and tue text atiirms that they understood Il
= | question better than We.
ADDITIONAL PROOF.
But, so fur, haye been considering the Il
dcrstanding Of the question manifested By Il
n trainers of tie original Constitution. In, III
l. by, the original instrument, a mode was pr
ss .idcd for amending it; aud, as have alreat
s. stated, the present frame OF Government und
.rf$
u twelve amendatory articles framed and atlopt'
s, since. Those who now insist that Federal co
ef troll of Slavery in Federal Territories violat
H. the Constitution, point us to the provision
g which they suppose it thus violates; and, as
y understand, they all fix upon provisions in the
70 strumcnt. The Supreme Court, in the Dr.
1e Scott case, plant themselves upon the iii
eo amendment, which provides that s*no pers.
nc shall be deprived Of property without due pr
cess Of law;" while Senator Douglas and 1
u peculiar adhercnts plant themselves upon t.
III tenth amendment, providing that 1.-THE powe
Us not granted by the Constitution, are resery
IS, to tile States respectively, aud 10 the people
ae Now, it 50 happens thHt these amendments we
nc framed by the first Congress which sat uud
3 the Consttution-the identical Congress viii
n, passed the act already. mentioned, enforc:
e. theprohibition Of Slavery in the North. este
v, Territory. Not only was it the same Congre
or but they were the identical, same individ,
y! men who, ut the same session, aud ut The sal
q" time within the session, had under consider
'l- tiou, aud in progress toward maturity, the
20 Constitutional amendments and this act III
ne hibiting Slavery in all the territory the na.i
,a' , then owned. Tho Constitutional un,eudlne1
ne were introduced before aud passed after the
ue enforcing the Ordinance OF 'S7 80 that luri
'e, the whole peulency of 1he act to cuforce !
lai lai Or.linauce, tue Constitutional amendments vi
la1 also pending. That Congress, consisting in
~ Of scyenty.six members, including sixteen
~ the trainers Of the original Constitution,
ae before stated, were rre-eminently our fath'
IL. | who framed that part Of the Goyernut
OF under which we live, which is now Chin
ne ne us forbiddng the Federal Government
ic' control Slavery in tho Federal Territorl
M MH- Is it not d little presumptuous in any {
~ 'Gt ut this day to affirm tl.at the two ihit
yi which that Congress deliberately framed, d
"a carried to maturity ut the same time, ure al
,tn lutc1y inconsistent with each othcrs And 4.
~ not such affirmation become impudently abss
'ss when coupled with the other Affirmation, tr
sss the sane mouth, that those Who did the I
~ things alleged to be inconsistent uuderstc
wbcther they really we're inconsistent, bet
sst, than we-better than lie who aliruls that It
arc inconsistent?
l. MORE PROOF STILL
n. It is surely safe to assume that the " thir
nine" trainers Of the original Constitution, {
no tue seventy six members Of the Congress wl,
1o1 framed The amendments thereto, taken togetl
loe do certainly include those who may be fai
eE" called "our fathers who framed the Gore
Icl- rnent untfcr which we liyen And 50 AestlnlI