Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1860-06-14

|
They were Joho Langdon, Nicholas Gill
man, WIN. 8. Johnson, Roger Sherman
Robert Morris. Thomas Fitzimmons, Wm
Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, VIM
Patterson, George Clymer, Richard Bsssett
George Read. Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll
James Madison.
This shows that In our understan nding, M
line dividing local from federal authority
nor anything In the Constitution, properi,
forbade Congress to prohibit slavery In the
federal territory; else both their fidelity to
correct principle and their oath to support
the Constitution, would have constrained
them to oppose the prohibition.
Again, George Washington, another o,
the "thirty .nine," was then President ol
The United States, and, as such, approved
and signed the bill, thus completing its va.
lidity as law, and thus showing that, Ia
his understanding, no line dividing locs
from federal authority, nor anything in the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern.
ment to control as to slavery in federal ter.
rtory.
No great while after the adoption o the
original Constitution, North Carolina ceded
to the Federal Government the country now
constituting the State Of Tennessee, and q
few years later Georgia ceded that which
now constitutes the States of Alabama anc
Mississippi In both deeds of cessioD 1t as
made condition by the ceding States ths,
the Federal Government should not prohib it
slavery in the ceded country. Under these
circumstances, Congress, on taking charge
Of these countries did not absolutely prohioit
slavery wi.hio them. But they did inter-
fere with it--take charge Of it--even there,
to certain extent. In 1898, Congress or
ganized the Territory OF Mississippi. In the
act OF organization they prohibited the
bringing Of slaves into the Territory, from
any place without the United States, by
fine, and giving freedom to slaves go brought
This act passed both branches of Congress
without yeas or nays. In that Congress
we're three of the "thirty. nine" who framed
the original Constitution. The, were Jno.
Langdon. George Reed and Abraham Bald
win. They all, probably, voted for it. Ger
tainly they would have placed their opposi-
ton to it upoh record, II, in their UNDER
standing. any line dividing local from fed.
eral authority, or anything in the Constitu.
ton, properly forbade the Fedetal Govern
ment to control as to slavery in federal ter
ritory.
In 1908, the Fedral Government purcha-
sed the Louisiana country. Our former ter.
ritorial acquisitions came from certain OF
our own States; but this Louisiana country
was acquired from foreign nation. In 1904
Congress gave a territorial organization to
that part Of 1t which now consti-
tutes the State of Louisiana. New
Orleans. lying within that part, was un old
and comparatively large city. There were
other con siderable towns and settlements,
and slavery was extensively and thoroughly
intermingled with the people. Congress
did not, in the Territorial ct, prohibit sla-
very; but they did interfere with it--take
control Of it-in a more marked and extern
sive way than they did in the case of Miss
issippi. The substance of the provision
therein made, in relation to slaves, was:
First. That no slave should be imported
into the territory from foreign ports.
Second. That no slave shonld be carried
into 1t who had been imported into the Uni
ted States since The first day of May.
Third. That no slave should be carried
into It. except BY the owner, and for his own
use as settler; the penalty in all the cases
being a fine upon the violator of the law,
and freedom to the slave.
This act also was paased without yeas
and nays. In the Congress which passed
it, there were two Of the "ihirty-nine. -
They were Abraham Baldwin and Jno. Day.
ton. As stated in the case of Mississippi,
it is probable they both voted for it. They
would not hOve allowed it to pass without
recording their opposition to it, If, in their
understanding itviolated either the line pro-
predivid'ng local from federal authority or
any provision OF the Constitution.
In 1880. came and passed the Missouri
question. Many votes were taken. by yeas
and nays, in both branches Of Congress.
upon the various phases Of the general ques-
tiol.,, Two Of the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. King
and Charles Pinckney--were members Of
that Congress. Mr., King steadily voted for
slavery prohibition sod against all compro-
m'9e1b whio HAT' THckHey 90 etoauiiy Voteo
against slavery prohibition and against all
compromises. BY this Mr.. King showed
that, In his understanding, no line dividing
local from federal authority, nor anything
in the Constitution, was viols.ed by Con-
gress prohibiting slavery in federal territory;
while Mr., Pinckney, by his votes, showed
,hatin MISUNDERSTANDING there, was some
sufficient reason for opposing such prohibi-
tionin thauoaSe. ne. Id ....,...
The cases have mentioned are tho only
acts Of the "thirty !nins." or of any Of them,
upon the direct issue, which ] have been
able 10 discovet, ~. Fl. >.,'t..' ..tt
ITO enumerate the persons who thus acted
as being four in 1884, three in 1887. seven
teen, in 1883. three in 1898, two in 1904,
and two in I8l9-2O--there would be thirty
one of them. But this would be counting
John Langdon, Roger Sherman, VIM. Few,
Rulus King and George Read. each twice,
apd Abraham Baldwin four lines. The true
nSmhef 6t,hose Of the "thirty-nine" whom
| haze shown to have acted upon the ques.
tion, which, by the text they understsnd
better than we, is'tweuty three, leaving six
teen moi shown to bave acted upon it in any