Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-04-07
Gntutl1erfiaI.


taxes became necessary, direct taxes were
levied.
We are called upon. Mr.. President, at this
time to act not only for the present but for.
the future, to lock round to take the widest
range of the horizon that our mental vision
renders us capable of taking. Might there
not come a time, when impost duties being
cut of, either by war or by other causes, and
a necessity having arisen for ievying taxes
for the support of Government-that a hos
tile, unfriendly legislation might display it
self, to the detriment if not the destruction of
the rights of the Southern people in the form
of unjust discrimination in the taxation of
slave property?
Sir, you have a Republican Congress in
power at present. Unfortunately. by the
withdrawal of our impetuous sisters OF the
South-would to God they had remained
with Us, and then believe we could have
successfully resisted all wrong. and amicably
settled all our difficulties-but by the with
drawal of our sister States of the South, the
powers of Government have been thrown
into the hands of Republican majority. The
Senate of the United States in their power.
and 7 believe also the House of Representa-
tives.
Suppose, then Mr.. President, in the first
Mace. the necessity of direct taxation arises,
and an inclination to make war upon the in
stitution of slavery, should manifest itself in
the.form of excessive taxes upon slaves, might
not the paragraph of the 3rd article now
under examination, prove the shield and
salvation of the slaveholding States !?
lex Gov. Wise has expressed the opinion
that under the Constitution as it is, there
could be no unjust discrimination against
slave property in levying taxes-that taxes
were required to be uniform. He referred to
cases decided in the Supreme Court in which
this question has been examined.
Mr.. SUMMERs-I am not prepared to speak
of the cases referred to at this time, not hav-
ing examined them. think my friend from
Princess Anne (Ex-Gov. Wise,) will find him.
self mistaken in the application of the cases
cited, to the point of security presented by
the amendment / will hear his views with
great pleasure The Constitution confers
both the power to apportion direct taxes
among the several States according to
numbers, and to levy and collect taxes"
While it is expressly required that "duties,
imposts and excuses shall be uniform through
out the United States" nothing is said OF the
uniformity of " taxes" though mentioned in
another part of the same paragraph In the
same connection with duties, impsots and
excuses" l might cOncede that all property
which is taxed at all, must be taxed at the
same rate in one State with the same proper
ty in other States. But know nothing eth
er in the Constitution or in the law which
restrict Congress in the selection OF the sub
iects of taxation, or which requires that taxes
shall be according to value.
l regard this as o most valuable provision.
And, Mr.. President, it is valuable not only
for the security which it affords US against an
unjust use of the taxing power OF the Gen
eral Government, but valuable in another as
pect. We often hear that there should be
some recognition of property in slaves, and
of slaves as property
I ask gentlemen, whether they could have
a fairer or more perfect recognition OF prop
erty in slaves. or of slaves as property than
this section itself affords? That Congress shall
not shave power to authorize any higher rate
of taxation on persons held to labor or SER
vice than on land" Subjects of taxation
.spersons held to service" They are there
treated as property. They are made subject
to valuation equally with good land; reduced
to an adj ualoren taxation, dollar for dollar
with land. ION persons held to labor or ser
vice than on land" direct and ample re-
cognition of the ''person held to service" as
a thing of property, and as such a SUBJECT OF
taxation, and in form OF taxation, reduced to
a valuation side by side with other property.
Another recognition of the same character
will be found in the seventh section, where 1t
is declared that Congress shall provide by
law. that the United States shall pay to the
o,pnsr the full ualue for his fugitive from labor,
&c. Thus it is provided, that in case OF the
imoossibility to return fugitive from labor
..the u. States shall pay to the Oloner." That
word "owner'' was never obtained before
sThe person to whom such service is DUE" Is
the way in which the Constitution describes
the master; but here it is provided that the
s.owuerD shall receive the full value OF his
f,lQitire from the public Treasury. Here are
two recognitions of property IN one breath:
First, the slave, as fugitive, is the prop
erty of his master--the "olcHer" is TO be paid
for "his f,lqitiue;" and second, the slave, as a
subiect of value, is admitted to be property
the "United States shall pay to the owner
the full value of his fugitive" He is to be
valued as property, and the value of this prop
erty paid to the master. Could there be
more complete admission of the rights OF the
master, and of his property in the slaves
The last paragraph of the third section
nrobibits the bringing of slaves into the Dis
trict of Columbia for sale, or for transporta-
ton thence as merchandise to other places.
Ii merely carries out the law of 1850, now In
force.
The fourth section-a short one-is in these
words:
.sThe third paragraph of the second section
of the fourth article of the Constitution shall
not be construed to prevent any OF the States,
by appropriate legislation and through the
action of their judicial and ministerial offi-
GERS, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives
from labor to the person to whom such SER
Vice or labor is due.
This section, Mr.. President, is not found
in Mr.. Crittenden's propositions. 1t was in
troduced to meet tho decisirn of the Supreme
Court of the U. States in the case of Edward
Pripp Us. the Commonwealth of Pennsylya-
MIA case reported in the sixteenth volume
of Peters Reports, and familiar to the pro-
fession. In that case, Judge Story with a ma
jority of the court, held that State law OF
nusylvania wasun constitutional They held
that the provisions in the Constitution OF the
United States for the capture and rendition OF
fugitive from labor, was to be carried out and
enforced, under the legislation OF Congress,
and not by State legislation.
The court held that the act of Congress,
passed on the 18th of Feb 1898, relative to
fugitives from labor, as well as fugitives from
Justice, was constitutional. The court was
further of opinion, that the provisions of that
act, covered both subjects, embraced by it,
not that they exhaustedlthe remedies which
might be applied by Congress, to enforce the
rights, if these provisions should be found In
practice inadequate, but because the act con-
tanned all the remedies which Congress, up to
that time, had deemed expedient. They pro-
nounced the act of the Legislature of Penn
sylvania to be unconstitutional and decided
that it was not competent for State to legis-
late on the subject. That the Federal Gov.
eminent must execute the law without eth
er the aid or the obstruction of the State au-
thorities.
On that occasion Chief Justice fancy, Mr.
Justice Thompson and Mr.. Justice Daniel, oil
our own State. delivered dissenting opinions
al, ha1l hot fbo fol .p0 a
were not prohibited by anything in the Con
stitution from appropriate legislation in aid
of the execution of that provision OF the
organic law, and that it might be their duty
In many cases so to act. That the right o
Congress to legislate was not an exclusive
right.
1t has been announced, indeed, from very
| high authority in the South, that the act o
| 1850 for the reclamation and rendition o
1 = mr.