Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1861-02-08

n being. capable Of incurring a legal oblgatio
If or liability. " Service is due from him.
Can this he said of chatte-a horse or
a cow or bale of cotton Surely not
Bat this provision. in its terms and by it
1 settled and u1iitorm construction, covers othe
e persons besides slaves. 1t covers all person
who owe service or labor BY contract as vel
a as by Involuntary servitude. An indented ap
] prentice, minor child, or even wife, twh,
2 by the common law, owes service or labor t
: her husband.) may be reclaimed under thi
= provision of the Constitution. ''Property'' il
the subject Of sale and traffic may be taker
in execution for payment Of debts goes tC
the administrator for the payment Of the
! debts of the owner, and for distribution t.
, his heirs. 1t will hardly be claimed, there
fore, THAI an apprentice, child, or a wife, are
made property by this clause of the Constitu-
lion, and yet they are as completely within iti
provisions as slaves.
But if slaves are recognized as property by
the Constitution, what necessity was there foI
a clause providing for the recapture of fugi.
tives from service CT labor? The Colistitr-
ton is the supreme law Of the land and
W! atevcr is recognized as property by that
ins; rument, the courts of all the States are
bound to treat as property. IT. therefore
aves are property under the Constitution
what necessity is there for any law or consti-
tutional provision for the recapture of fugi-
tives? why does not the mas er take bis
Save, in any State where he may find him, on
a writ of replevin in the Federal or State
court. establish his title, and take him home
with him, just as he would his horse or his OK?
Wig haze We no constitutional provision or
Law Of Congress for the recapture of fugitive
horses or cattle? Simply because they are
property and therefore there is no necessity
for it. And il is only because slares are not
property that necessity exists for this con-
stitutional provision.
But it is claimed that in the apportionment
of representation and taxation the Constitu-
zion recognizes slaves as property.
In the convention that framed the Consttu-
ton, the free States claimed that slaves were
property, like horses or cattle, and that there
fore they ought not to make any part of the
basis of represeE tation and the slave States
claimed that they were persons, and not prop
erty occupying the position of propertF III TN
inals and inanimate things. But after the
basis of representation was agreed upon, both
parties took especial care to exclude the idea
that they were property, or that the representa-
ton in Congress should, to any extent, be
based upon property. AS aH instance of this
look a the proceedings that were had upon
The 18th Of September
"ArticIe four, Sc .tion two being under con-
sidcrntion, on motion of Mr.. Randolph, the
word 'servitude' was struck out and service
unanimously inserted the former being
thought to express the condition of slaves, and
the latter the obligation of free persons. %
EiLiots Debates, $40.
The Constitution in this article treats slavcs as
persons, occupying dependent and su 'ordi-
nate position, analogous to women and Gill
dren who, though they could not vote were nev-
erthelcss regarded rs proper to be considered
in adjusting the basis OF representation.
The trainers Of The Constitution, i'll adjusting
1.-THE basis Of representation, were not only IN
duced 10y their opposition TO slavery, but by
an apprehension that making property Il basis
of representation would render it exceedingly
odious to the people, and prevent its ralificA-
tion. Great care taken, therefore, to eX-
clude that idea from the text of the Consttu-
tion itself; but in the debates and proceedings
the South tlisclaimed the idea of basing rep
resentation on slaves as property, but claimed
that they were persons, end therefore ought
to be represented.
3. 1t is claimed that the provision authori-
zing Congress to prohibit the slave trade after
: the year 1908 recognizes property in slaves.
There was no clause in the Constitution
more bitterly contested than this. 1t will be
seen from the provision itself, well as from
the debates upon it, that it was regarded on
all hands as measure Of hostility to slavery
On the 22d OF August, George Mason, Of Nir
ginia, made aspeech on this question, which
shows the temper and spirit in which the
subject was discussed. He said
This INTERNAL traffic originated in the ava.
8 rice of British merchants. The British Gov
ernment constantly checked the attempt oi
Virginia to put a stop to it. The present ques
ton concerns not the importing States alone,
but the whole Union The evil ofh wing slaves
was experienced during the last war. Had
slaves been tret ted as they might have been by
the enemy they would have proved d ngerous
, Instruments in their hands But their folly
. dealt by the slaves as it did by the tories. He
menti0nt d the dangerous instructions f slave E
in Greece and sicily; and the instructions Civ
en- iv Cromwell to the commissioners sent to
Vir-imift to arm the servants and slaves in case
| other means of obtaining its submission should
! fail. Maryland and Virginia he sad had eN-
pressly prohibited the importation Of slaves. -
| North Carolina had done the same in sub
, stance. All this would be in vain, if South
Carolina and Georgia would be at liberty to
import The western people are already cal
ling ont for slaves for their lands, and will
fiji that country with slaves, if they eau be
got through South Carolina and Georgia.
Slavery discourages arts and manufactures
The poor despise labor when performed
by slaves. They prevent the emigration of
whites. who really enrich and strengthen a
country. They produce the most perniciouS
effects on manners. Every master of slaves is
born Il petty tyrant. They bring the Judg-
meut of Heaven on Il country - nations can
not be rewarded punishedin the next world,
they must in this. BY an irevitah" chain of
causes and effects Providence Furnishes nation
al sins by national cllamTties. He laurented
that some of our eastern brethren had from
lust of gain, embarked in this nearious traffic.
As to the States heng in possession of the
right to import, this was the case with many
other rights now given up. He held it essen
tial, in every point of view, that the General
Government should have power to prevent the
increase of slavery"
This would seem 10 indicate that the COM
vention would not be likely to give slavery
any recognition that was not absolutely iRdis-
pens lbe for the accomplishment of their pur-
poses. The thing that seemed TO trouble
them most was how they could levy tax upon
saves imported prior TO E60S, without recog-
nzing or treating them as property. In dis
euseing the question of imposing duty upon
slaues-
.9Tr SHERMAN said he was aEtinst ths sec
ond part as acknowledging men to be proper
tv by taxing them under the character of
slaves.
"Mr. KING and Mr.. LANGDoN considered this
as the price Of the first part.
General PIekNEY admitted that it was so,
Colonel MAsoE. Not to tax VIII be boun-
tv on the importation of slaves.
| tbnVrb4 that Mr Gbarr,op