Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1860-06-15
Pierce Butler,
Daniel Carroll,
James Madison.

This shows that, in their understanding, no
line dividing local from federal authority nor
anything in the Constitution, properly forbade
Congress to prohibit slavery in the Federal
Territory, else both their fidelity to correct
principal, and their oath to support the Con-
stitution would have constrained them to op-
pose :he prohibition.
OPINION OF GEORGE WASHINGTON
Again, George Washington, another Of the
Fthirty- y-ninc," was then President Of the U.
States, and as such, approved and signed the
bill, thus completing lis validity as Law, and
thus showing that in his understanding, no
line dividing local from federal authority, nor
anything 10 the Constitution, forbade the Fed
eral Government to control as to slavery In
Federal Territory. loud applause.) No
great while after the adoption of the original
Constitution, North Carolina ee1ed 10 the Fed
eral Governments the country now constituting
the State of Tennessee; aud, few yearsla
Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the
States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both
deeds of cession, it was made condition by
the ceding States that the Federal Government
should not prohibit slavery in the ceded coun-
try. Under these circumstances, Congress, on
taking charge of taese countries, did not abso~
lutely prohibit slavery within them.
CONGRESS DID INTERFERE.
But they did interfere with it--take control
of it-even there, to certain extent. 10 1898
Congress organized tbe Territory of Mississlp-
ri. lD the act of organization they prohibited
the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from
any place without the United States, by ine,
and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This
act passed both branches of Congress without
yeas aud uays. ln that Congress were three
of the ''thirty-biae" who framed the original
Constitution. They we're JOHN Langdon, Geo.
Read aud Abraham Baldwin. They all prob
ably, voted for it. Certainly they would have
placed their opposition to it upon record if, in
their understanding, any line dividing local
and federal authority, or anything 10 the Con-
stitution properly forbade the Federal Govern
meut to coutrol as to slavery in Federal Terri-
tory. [Appiause.l
La 1903 the Federal Government parchased
the L0nisiana copnsrr Narf fas1ner asssitefial
acquisitions came from certain of our own
States, but this Louisiana country was acquired
from q foreign nation. In 1904 Congress gave
a Territorial organization to that part Of it
which now constitutes the State of Louisiana.
New Orleans, lying within that part, was an
old and comparatively large city. There we're
other considerable towns and settlements, aud
slavery was extensively and thoroughly inter-
mingled with the people. Congress did not,
10 the Territorial act, prohibit slavery bat
they did interfere With it--in a more marked
aud extensive way than they did in the case Of
Mississippi.
THE LOUISIANA PRovIso.
The substance of the provision therein made
in relation to slaves vas
First, That no slave should be imported into
the Territory from foreign parts
Second, That no slave should be carried into
il who had been imported into the States since
the FIRST day of May, 179S.
Third, That no Slave should be carried into
1T, except BY tue owner, and for his own use
as settler; the penalty in all the cases being
a fine upon the violator Of the law aud freedom
to the slave. prolonged cheers
This act also was passed without yeas or
nays. La the Congress which passed il. there
were two of the "thirty-nine." They were
Abraham Baldwin and jonathan Dayton. As
stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable
they both voted for it. They would not have
allowed il to pass without recording their oppo-
sition to tiff 10 their understanding it violated
either the line properly dividing local from
federal authority or any provision of the Con-
stitution. Many votes we're taken, By yeas
and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon
the various phases of the general question:
Two of the "thirty-niue"-Rufus King and
Charles Pinekney--Were members Of that Con-
gress. Mr.. King steadily voted for slavery
prohibition aud against all compromises, while
Mr.. Piuckney as steadily voted against slavery
prohibition, aud against all eompromises.-
(cheers.) By this Mr.. King showed that. in
his understanding, no line dividing local from
federal authority, Dor anything in the Consti-
tuition, was violated by Congress prohibiting
slavery in Federal Territory; while Mr.. Pinck-
ney, by bis votes, showed that, in his UNDER
standing, there was some sufficient reason for
opposing such prohibition in that case.
THE FATHERS ON RECORD.
The cases | have mentioned are the only acts
of the sfthirty-nioe," or of any of them, upon
the direct issue, which have been able to dis
cover. To enumerate the persons who thus
acted, as being four IN 1884, three in 1887,
seventeen in 1889, three in 1898, two in 1904,
and two In lSI9-'20-there would be thirty
one OF them. But this would be counting Jno.
Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus
King and Geo. Read, each twice, and Abraham
Baldwin four times. [Appiause.l He was
Georgian, too. [Renewed applause aud laugh
ter. The true number of those of the "tbir.y-
nine" whom have shown to have acted upon
the question, which, By the text they understood
better than We, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen
not to have acted upon it 10 any way. Here,
then, We have twenty-tbree of our "thirty-niDe"
fathers who framed the government under which
We live, who have, upon their official response
bility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the
very question which the text afirms they sun
derstood just as we'll, and even better than we
do now" and twenty-one of them--a clear ma
joritY of the whole s'thirty-uine acting