Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1861-04-08
Conference plan is one of vast importance.
Let us see what it does lor the projection Of

our rights.
You will have remarked, no doubt, EIr
Chalrman, the change OF phraScology in passing
from the North sdo to the South side Of the
line which is to divide freedom and slavery in
the Territories. North Of the line "inyol.
untary servltude" is prohibited save ir punish.
mont OF crime No one doubts or denies that
TINS phrase applies to slaves, and that it proh!b.
its slavery whether slavery ts property in slaves
or mere relation. While South Of the line
" the status Of persons held to service or LABOR
as 1t now exists shall not be changed" What
Is meant by "perSons held to Service or labor f'
The gentleman from Kanawha (Mr. SUMMERS, }
says that it is the language Of the Constitution,
and that 1t recognizes property in slaves. The
Republican leaders on the other hand rely
on thls very phrase to prove that the CoRstitu-
ton does not recognize property in slaves, and
that slavery is mere personal relation.
Senator FesseEden in a speech delivered in
the United States Senate on the 9Th Of Fcbru.
airy, 1858, i'll commenting on the Dred Scott
case, said:
"The Court say that slaves are recognized
as property by the provision :hat "persons
: held to service" escaping from ore State to
another shall be delivered up. Arc they not
spoken of as 'perscns 2 Are they spoken of
as property? Is there anything ABOUT their
being property? Does nor tina! provision oi
the Constitution apply just as we'll to white
apprentices, held un.ier the laws of the diifer.
ent Ststts foc term of yeats, al It does 10
slaves !? Will you pretend that by the Con.
'stitu:ion Of the United States white persons
held as apprentices for term o: years are pro.
'perty Certainly no such position cen ex.
st?'
Senator Oollamer in speech made in the
Senate on the ID of March, 1858, in criticising
the same decision, said s:
The Supreme Court rests tho claim 10
consider slaves rs property upon this clause
of the Constitution. No person held to
service or labor in one State under tho laws
thereof escaping 10 another StTto shall,
in consequence Of any law o. regulation
therein be discharged from such scrrice Or
labor. Now, the question is, does that gaa.
rantee it? Does that make it the same rs oiher
property? The very fact that this same
clause makes provision Oil tho subjecI of per-
sous 6ounG TO sc7ciee shows that tho trainers
OF the Constitution did not regard it as other
property. l. recognizes slavery, il property
at all, to be property local within the State
whose laws make it such, not as s;,gl beyond
'it"
Who will be the cxpounders of this phrase ?
Not the gentleman from Kanawha, (hir. Sun.
AsRs) nor any other Southern man but Re.
publicsn judges, commissioned because they
hold the tenets of their party. This status
then, which is not to Lu changed. is not Il
right Of property, and the provision pretend.
ing to recognize slavery, incorporates in the
settlement Of the question, the Republican ar
gumcnt d!spToving the existence Of property
i'll slaves. How does it help the matter to iE-
form us that the phrase employed is the Ian
guage of the Constitution! 1t is the mscon-
struction Of the Constitution Of which we COM
plain, and the design Of this settlement was
to remove the possibility Of n;sconstruction.
1t does so by employing the very language
which hiss given rise to the controversy and
has afforded to the Republicans their farorite
argument against slavery. The gentleman
from Kanawha, (Mr. SUMMEEs,) in urging this
provision upon our acceptance, merely repeat
ed the Southern argument and omitted that
Of the Republicans, although the latter is to
be the rule OF construction.
Let US examine this phrase in another as.
pect "The status as it now exists shall no.
be changed" By what standard is that status
to be tried. Undoubtedly, ne in tho South,
maintain that tho Constitution carries slavery
into the Territories, and that it overrode the
Mexican law in New Mexico. The Territorial
legislation, therefore, recognizing slavery in
that Territory, relied On by tho gentleman
from Kanawha (AIr. SrMMeis) does in a
Southern point Of view, fix the status Of slavery
upon the slaves now there.
But the question material for US to consider,
is. whether the Republican judges will recog.
nize that status, to be one of slavery? Unques-
tionably not, if they hold the dog:nas Of their
party, as announced in the speeches Of thei,
leaders, and formally incorporated in their
platforms adopted al Philadelphia aud Chi.
cago.
By the second resolution of their platform
adopted in Philadelphia on the 18Th Of June
1856, it is declared, THAT VIC deny the all
thority of Congress-. OF territorial legisla-
I. .ure, Of any individual, or association of in
dividuas, to give legal existence to slavery
in any territory Of the United States, while
the present Constitution shall be maintained
In the sth resolution of the platform adopted
BY the Republicans at Chicago on the 18th o.
May, 1880, they declare: THAT the normal
| condition of all the territory Of the United
| States is that Of freedom: That as our Pc
publican fathers, When they had abolished
slavery in ali our national territory, ordained
that no uetson should be deprived Ct life
liberty, or property, without due process u
law it becomes our duty, by Legislation
whenever such legislation is necessary, e
maintain this provision Of tho Constitution
against all attempts to violate il; and vi
deny the authority OF Congress, Of terrific
rial legislature, or Of any individuals, 10 give
legal existence to slavery in any territory 0
the United States"
10 understand the full significance Of thu
Chicago resolution it must be borne in mine
that it was adopted six days after the Repub?i
Guns had by It majority Of seven in the Hous
of Representatives abrogateG the slave code o
New Mexico The measure failed in the Sen
ate because there were yet Southern Senator
enough to defea. it, but the Republicans imnie
diately took it up and made such Legislation
'lhe duty" Of their party.
We might suppose that the gentleman iron
Kanawha, (Mr. SrMMEEs,) was not aware G
this Republican dogma, concerning !he ia"
the Territories, but the venerable gen!lena
from Churlcs City, informs US that all cmlnen
Republican leader ayowed it or the floor of In
Peace Congress. 1t is understood that this car
did adversary is the present Secretary OF IN
Treasury We are compelled, therefore, I
conclude tina. the gentleman from kanaTha
(Mr SrMIEps) urged this provision ap"n on
acceptance, with the full knowledge tfat IN tn
opinion Of Republican leaders it proh;tite
slavery in the Territories
Be this as it may, however, it can hardly b
doubted that the next Congress will abrosat
the slave code Of New Mexico, and should tn
Peace Conference plan be adopted, speaking u
it does in the present tense. it will find !ret
dom as the status Of New Mexico, and l'X TIA
status ilrevocab!y.
The next provision intended fer our benefit i:
that "no law shall be passed by Congress or til
Territorial Legislature, to hnler or prevc'
the taking Of such persons (persons held to SCI
vice or labor from any OF the States OF th
Union to the said Territory, nor to impair th
rights arising from the said relation" Th
sounds very fairly, but, unfortunately for Il!
a. la IL