Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1861-02-08
NO. As!

n to their settled purpose not to permit any
: thing 10 go into the Constitution that coul
l be construed into right Of one man TO hol
property in another
; And the tax Was finally resolved into po
: tax. as follow:
4 But tax or duty may be imposed on sucI
Importation, not exceeding ten dollars pc
head
, In addition to the discussions on the par
ticullr clause of the Constitution referred to
there is very significant passage in the de
Bate upon another subject.
On the 28th of August the convention had
under consideration the clause providing tina
the citizens of each State shall be entitled t.
all the privileges and inlinumit;es of citizens o
the several Stat 5, when the following pro
ceedihs3 were had
General PICKxEY was not satisfied with it
He seemed to wish some pPovisioE should bt
included in favor of property in slaves.
''On the question article four, the ayes
were 9, naysl South Carolina, Ge prgia divi-
ded.'
Here the demand was made in terms that
some provision should be made in the
. Constitution recognizing slaves as property.
1t was met with suHcn silsnce, and the vote
of nine States ont OF eleven against it. 1t is
certain that General Pickncy did not sup
1 pose there was anything in the Constitution
which recognized slaves property, or he
would not have asked for such provision.
1t must be admitted fom this review Of HE
provisions relied on, that it was not the in
tention Of tlte trainers .! the Constitution to
admit any idea that slavery was to be recog-
nizcd by that instrument, except as q local
Safe institution, dependent wholly upon
! State laws This was the universally recogni-
zed construction Of the Constitution for more
than sixty years after its adoption. All the
departments of the Govcrnment-legisative
executive, and judicial have uniformly acted
upon this construction until within the last
ten or twelve years The State courts, and
especially the courts Of the slaveholding
States, adopted and followed the same con
struction until within few years past.
But il is now claimed that all this must be
reversed, and that now and henceforth it must
be he'd that slavery is recognized by the
/ Constitution, and that it goes everywhere
throughout Our territorial limits, when not
/ prohibited BY local State laws. And con-
fcss l cannot very well understand why or
how, if this claim is well founded it does not
go into all the States as well as the Terrific
ries, in defiance of State c1n t;tutions and
State laws: Fhe Constitution of the United
States is the supreme law of the land, and all
: > tate constitutions and State laws in conflict
with it are void Tho citiz ms of each State
are entitled to all the privileges and immuni-
ties of citizens Of the several States What
ever is Recognized as property by the CGnsti-
tuition Of the United States, / suppose any
citizen may take with him where he will, and
make his domice where he pleases.
] suppose the Legislature Of Ohio has no
right to prohibit my friend from Kentucky
MIR. Adams] from coming to Ohio with his
BoIrbon whisky and his Durham cattle. and
making Ohio his residence 1t is difficult,
therefore, TO see, if slaves are recognized as
property by the Constitution, how any man
can be 'prived of the right to own aud enjoy
1t wherever he may go, or wherever his dOmi-
Gle may be. am aware that this is not mar
claimed. 1t would be premature and bad
genrraship to lay siege to the citadel Of free
dorn before the outposls are secured.
But it is claimed that, slaves being recog
nized as property by the Con titution, the
STAKEHOLDER has right to take theHl into the
Territories and hold them there until State
government is organized. 1t is also claimed
that, slaves being property, the STAKEHOLDER
has what is technically called the right of
transit that is, the right of STAKEHOLDER GO
ing into or passing through a free State, for
purposes Of business or pleasure to take his
slave with him, and hold him as a slave so
long lis his business or pleasure may require
him to remain. The only limitation upon the
right as ii is now claimed is. that he may not
make the free State his domicile and still hold
his slave
! let US understa nd one another distinctly,
and see what the proposition is in all its
length, breadth, and proportions They do
not claim that, as matter of comfy and
good neighb1rIood the free States ought to
grant that privilege. 1t is claimed as a CON
stitutionaI right, Which the STAKEHOLDER may
exercise in defiance OF the laws Of the State to
which he goes. II the relation of master and
slave continues during the passage or stay Of
the party in the free State. It must a ry with
it all the incidents which naturally and neces-
sarly result lfoim that relation The master
must have the right to exercise dominion and
control over the slave, and to use such force
and intliot such chastisement upon the slave
as may be necessary to compel obedience to
bis lawful commands. And by what law
shall this power be regulated and controlled ?
There is no common law to which we can ap-
peal, for the common law dues not recognize
the relation at all.
What is lawful command that the slave
is bound to obey? What law shall determine?
Does the STAKEHOLDER carry with him the law
of his State? If he is Virginian, does the
! law of Virginia appi5: and if he is a Ken
tuekian, some other law? The claim, then, is,
/ that if slaveh lIcr, passing through free
State, gives his slave reasonable correction,
which, by the l;rrSs of the State in which the
ofense is committed, is an assault and battery,
he may nevertheless plead the laws of another
State, set up the relation Of master and slave,
and that the battery charged was in the exer-
else of his rights as owner or master in giving
reasonable correction to his slave, and there
4 fore that he was justiliable and this is g0bf
] bar to the Indictment. On, if the slave re-
sists and is killed by the master, the killing is
not murder but justiiable homicide. Aud
whether, in any given case, the facts will con-
stitute a justification, depends not upon the
laws of the State where the offanse is commit
! ted, but upon the laws of that one of the ff,
teen slave States from which the master may
have happ, ned to come.
But, il the Constitution recognizes the slave
as property, and as such he ia taken by his mas
ter into free State he goes there subject TO all
/ the incidents and liabilities of property He
! is liable to be seized on execution or attach
ment for the payment of his masters debt
lie may, of course be sold at public auction
to she highest bidder. And if the sale be le-
/ gal and the purchaser acquires u good title,