The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1860-06-21
The mystificarions of a Neophyse
AboIittontaa.

Missouri, and Western Illinois
The mystificarions of Neophyse
Abolitiontas.
The Journal has another qualified aboli-
ton article Of considerable length in it's is.
sue OF Wednesday morning. We admire the
spunk of the Editor, but doubt his discretion.
As however he 10 a new hand at the business,
his views are somewhat contradictory. He
will require cur supervision, for while, bat
we are pleased with the indications that be
agitation"
In the following paragraphs the Journal 10
historically and Cons.itutionally, oil right.
''Instead of treating slaves as property
o property "existlpg on the same basis 40
other property and ssresting on the same
original right" the Constitution does not
refer to them in the character of property at
all. They are uniformly spoken of as ssper-
sons" and the condition OF slaves ia desig-
mated as ''psrsoas o,cing SERVICE" net under
the Constitution itself, but ".snder the laos
Of the States" The debates of the Conven.
ton show why ssthe early fathers of the Re
public we're thus cautious in the wording
of the Constitution. Mr.. Madison was thus
cautions because he thought it "wrong to
admit in the Constitution that there can
be property in man" Elhridge Gerry was
thus cautious for the same reason. When
the clause prohibiting the slave trade after
1908 and authorizing the imposition of a
duty Of two dollars head on each person
imported previous to that time, was under
consideration, Mr.. Gerry opposed the tax
+" because ii Uouid imply that they 1.-THE per-
sons imported) Usre property"
1.-The entire absence OF all aliusion TO
negroes ae property in the Constitution,
shows that these sentiments were participa-
ted In by the Convention itsef.o
The Convention adopted the views ex-
pressed by Madison, Gerry and others, who
carefully guarded the phraseology OF the
Constitution, so that it should not furnish
the shadow of a semblance "of the idea, OF
property 10 man" as declared by the Editor
OF the Journal himself. And yet at the
close OF the very next paragraph the Editor
becomes weak in the knees, and therefore
says
'That the Convention recognized dual.
stitution recognizes such qualified property
is a fact which we do net call in question:
Now, Judge fancy in the Dred Scott de-
elsion says that the Constitution expressly
athrms the right Of property in slaves Does
Judge fancy mean qualified property p
de don't say so. But is there in the Consti
tuition an cypress affirmation of the rioht OF
property in man in any shape either ahso.
lutte or quaifedp 1t would be strange il
there 10, after the great caution manifested
by Madison and Gerry and others of it's fra
mers to avoid suca an idea. We affirm, and
everybody can see by reading il, that there
10 no assertion of the right Of property in
man, and not even an express admission OF
the condition Of Slavery. When Judge Taney
expressly declares that "she Constitution en-
rressly afhrms the right of property il
Slaves" We deny il and appeal to the deeu
mens which contains nothing OF the kind
And when the Journal admits that eth,
Constitution recognizes qualified property
IN Slaves, we protest against the unfortu
law pai@e1otoRss winch hutuItt all that tn
trainers Of the Constitution sough. to avoi
right OF property TN man. The Constitu
ton itself IN express terms recognizes onl
the condition of certain persons owing. servic
and our Legislators and Judges infeYrentia
iy but correctly held that these persons al
the Slaves of the South. To admit the errc
neous proposition that the Constitution req
ognzes qualified property in man is /,
yield the whole ground, and under the skill
fal manipulations of the National Democ
racy and the Supreme Court will prove az II
tai as the other dogma that the Constitute
expressly afhrms this right of property. W
beg our cotemporary therefore to plant bin
self on the solid foundation of the Const
tuition as carefully worded by Madison, &c
~, and their illustrious compeers of n
early DAYS Of the Republic, and never a,
NIT again that the Constitution recognizes
"4uailtied property" in man.