, 1862-03-22

in the course Of a recent debate in the Sen
ate. The Maryland Senators were driven
to confess that there was no law on the
statute book Of their State In 1790, at the
time of the cession, that would hold ''na- |
tive born inhahtant in bondage. They at
tempted to quibble ont Of the dilemma by |
contending that the common law Of |
England was in force, and that
it recognized and supported Slave
r.. But this position is wholly un-
tenable. Maryland, in her declaration Of
rights adopted in 1776, asserted that the
inhd6itants'o Of Maryland are entitled to tho
common a,o Of England" "Inhabitants'
is the comprehensive term embracing every
human being within her territory, no mat
ter <hat his condition. The common law
Of England at that time permitted-no alav-
cry. -Four years before, Lord Mansfield
had pronounced his ever memorable de-
cision in the case Of Somerset; in virtue Of:
which, legally, the fetters fell from the:
limbs Of every slare wherever the COM
mon Law bore sway.
The case was this: Somerset was a ne
gro slave, carried by his master from Amer
lea to England, and there confined in order
to be sent to the West Indies He sued
out q writ Of hc6tas corpus, and was dis
charged after prolonged and elaborate dis
cnssion, upon the ground that Slavery did
not and could not exist in England under
the common law Of England; that every
man who breathed the air Of that country
was free. This renowned decision was
made in 1772, and has never been reversed.
In the case Of Knight, q negro slave brought
into Scotland in 1773, the High court Of
Scotland rendered similar decision and
set the bondman at liberty.
Thus it is seen that the advocates Of Sla
very arc driven to the wall The thing has
no right or business in the District. Con
gress: should not hesitate to abate the
nuisance It has subsisted by tolerance
and in the absence Of positive penal pro-
hibition. The bill before Congress pro-
yidcs the mandate for the extinction Of the
unlawful practice at the National Capital,
and orders that no inhabitant Of the Fed
e1al District shall be restrained Of his free
dom while the Union lasts. We are hope
| full that 1t will be enacted, receiving the
| Presidents sanction. Fourteen years ago,
when he was 4 member Of Congress, he
had the manhood to introduce bill for the
abolition Of Slavery in the District. It
n,ay have differed somewhat in its
details from the present bill, buI
the principle embodied was the
same-to lid the District Of the banefu;
and disgraceful practice. He felt then, q:
now, that slavery in Washington is 8 pub
lie diaAonor on the nation, as well as being
morally and politically wrong. It woult
be absurd for Congress to "iniiate emanci
pation'' in the border States, in accordance
with the Presidents recommendation Will,
maintaining Slavery where it has exclusiv
jurisdiction Nothing would do more t.
commend our cause to the sympathies AMI
favor Of the people Of Europe than tn
passage Of q bill abolishing slavery at th
| National Capital. It would be pa1pabl
testimony that our Government is reall,
on the side Of Freedom in this struggle
and that tie war is waged for something
more Than territorial domain Til
more speedily the bill is passed the bette
for the Union cause at home and abroad