New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-01-16
WEDNESDAY,, JANUARY le, 1861.

in the unsettled Territories of the country. Here
the germ from winch think all our political here
sies spring. You say that slaves being property
der the Constitution in the sense as horses 0
CATTLE therefore you have right to 20 into all th
Territories and hold slaves there by virtue of the Con
situiion. You say further, that being property yo
have a right TO take them with you wherever yoI
sojoum and may go for a temporary purpose into tn
Free States, and claim to bold them there.
that principle is right, and tie doctrine sound
confess do not very well see how you can stop a
that. The Constitution of the United States is Tho
law of the land, and ali State Constitutions ant
State laws coming in conflict with it are null
and void. | desire to know upon what principle we
can exclude Slavery from the Free States, prevent
any man coming in with slaves and making Free
State his domie? Indeed if Slavery existed by virtue
of the Constitution we could not prevent him. can
not prevent man from Kentucky going with bis
Bourbon whisky or his Durham cow across TO Ohio
and settling there, because 1t was his constitutional
right TO do So and Ohio could not invade that right
and if slaves be property in the same sense, you
contend how can we prevent you from coming TO Ohio
and domiciling and holding your slaves property
there7 Gentlemen claim that this is the Constitution,
and that if il is not il ought to be so.
Mr.. CRAWFORD Opp, Ga arose to a correction.
TIE gentleman wes latoripg under misrepresentation
He says that we contend that hold slaves by virtue
OF the Constitution. WHAT man at the South hold
that doctrine
Mr.. STANTON-I confess am at a loss to com.
prehcnd upon what ground what claim you hold.
You cay, however, that the Constitution recognizes
slaves as property in TIE same sense as it
recoo nizes all other descriptions Of property.
Now Sir want to show the utter impOssbiity of the
people Of the Free States ever yielding that Constu
tional principle. You claim that you may come into
Ohio and temporarily soOurn with your slaves that
you possess the Constitutional right and you did not
ask us to pass law 10 permit you to sOjOun Temporal
rily with your slaves, but you claim the right in def
ance Of the sovereign right to bring your slaves with
vou and TO hold them there long as your pleasure
convenience may require This you claim the Consti-
uOnal right to do, and that we have no control over
the matter-that we cannot regulate or prohibit IL.
Mr.. REAGAN never heard this right assumed In bis
life.
Mr.. STANTON-But this is the inevitable result of
what you do claim. Fit be Constitutional right to
take slaves into Free State, why is the Supreme
Court engaged in the Lennon case, which arose in
New. York several years ago 7
Mr.. STEVENSON Opp. Ky.l-Do | understand
the gentleman to say that the Lennon case from
any claim TO settle in Free State The Lennon slaves
were taken down there temporarily and the South does
claim the right of protection for the slave while that
property is in transu The Lemmon case, therefore,
involved no other right than the night Of transit.
Mr.. STANTON--'The right of transitu is the right Of
the master to 90 and during his pleasure long
ar he does not actually domicile himself Ii the slave
holder bias right 90 into the Free States, and has
the constitutional right TO take bis slave with him. he
takes with him all the rights OF master Now, upon
this point let US understand one another clearly.
When YOU go into a Free State not regulated by the
laws Of the State where You come fromfor they deny
the right Of master TO exercise control over the slave
you claim TO carry with you into Free State the
right 10 exercise dominion and control over the slave
while there. Now if gentleman go into Free State
with bis slaves and the slaves become re6eous, has
be not a right according his constitutional claim, TO
subdue that rebelhous dspostion and to reduce them
To obedience and nfic reasonable correction Is not
that SOL Very well; by what light is that law to be
REGARDED but by the law Of the State from whence he
came 2 Now, suppose man brings slave INTO free
State, and controversy arises between thein, the
L, to tha MAJ he tfQr N
dertakes 10 ihiC castisement upon him, and he is re-
sisted In that care the slave may bs killed, and the
master is forthwith indicted for murder. On trial
II l. claimed that the master was eHereslng his con-
s,itutional right in nAicting reasonable chastise
ment and the Courts OF the Free States must recog
nze the law of the Slave States in defining and pun
shng the crime. Again, you take slaves into Free
State claim you take them there can ana0Fe, ana the
slave ceases 10 be part Of your property. Now,
Southern planter having purchased goods IN New
York goes there and takes his slave with him. The
master gets into debt TO the merchant who hes his al
fdayits and has writ issued, and gets an attachment,
and arrests the slave being property and subjects him
TO sale for the satisfaction Of the master debit Again,
suppose slave owner goes into Free State and con.
debts and dies there before they are paid and
leaves three or four slaves behind him. HIS creditors
take out the letters Of administration, and can
seize upon the slaves as property, and can
cell them IN satisfaction OF the debt.
Now when you have established this state OF things
want you to know how much you viii fall short OF
making this one grand consolidated sayeholding con
federacy There is an essential difference between tn
two organizations indeed, because claims all these
rights for the Shareholders and the others resist them
as unconstitutional And yet we told by the gen
tlemen from Texas that Unless the Republican organi
zaton dsbands itself, and recognizes these constu
tona demands, civil war must come, and the Govern
nent must be oyerthrown. do not choose 10 60 into
discussion IA TO what is likely to result from the differ
enee between the two sections, what might be the
result in case Of personal conflict. This hope
will be avoided But there are some things which
q ehav- dir
able seraration from the Confederacy, and the or
ganization of Southern Confederacy, they ought to
know that 1t cannot be accomplished IN the mode they
ire adopting grant you fairly and frankly that
do not believe that this Government can be held to-
gether by military force. do not believe that one
section will subject or the other, and hold u
az a conquered province. have no idea Of any such
thing for ii is against the genius OF the country and OF
The age TO attempt Il. regard civil war, as means
70 settle the question, the very worst that could be
adopted for at this stage il would hasten the
separation Of the Confederacy, and result III the
organization of two separate Coniedericies' Not
even one let alone seven eight States, could be held
as al conquered province, and any who suppose this
could be done are greatly mistaken. But gentlemen
mua see at once in the way Secession Is gong on that
ci il war must inevitably result. You cannot break
out OF the Union by force and violence. Ii We have
Government at all 30 long it remains operative is
laws must be executed What is the Government
L. there any such government on earth as TO allow her
rights TO be insulted and her laws to be disregarded
Why, Sir, when You put Boston coufthouse III cuaius,
and called on the Army and Navy to assist in carrying
out the law in reference TO fugitive slave that was
not considered coercion.
Mr.. BOC0CK Dem, Va said that when Boston
Court House was in chains, and the army and navy
called out TO insure the surrender OF Anthony Burns,
If Massachusetts had indicated her sovereignty there
would have been no necessity for the employment Of
such force.
Mr.. STANTON-Have the States Of Georgia and
Louisiana that have seized the forts and iortresses OF
aha fhsl etnIrE
States even before they bad seeded from the Con-
federacy
Mr.. CRAWFORD said, that so fer as Georgia was
concerned had taken the forts because they wero NJ