Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1862-05-14
| Judge Thomns and Thaddeus Stevens.

Mr.. LovEJoY obtained the floor, but yield
ed to Mr.. Stevens, Mr. Thomas of Alassachu-
sets Directing to the arrangement.
IHE SPEAKER.-Ghe gentleman from Hi
nois having yielded the floor, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. STEvENs.-I do not rise now to make a
speech of any length, or to discuss the aboli-
ton of slavery as a general question, l do
not think that at all necessary. | want to
show, in few direct remarks how impossible
1t is for a mind DESTROYS Of preventing slavery,
or OF abolishing il where we have the power,
to come to the conclusion that they are pre-
vented from doing it by any constitutional OBJ
lection. This bill proposes that there shall
be no slavery hereafter in the navy and the
dock yards OF the United States, or in any
other places where the United States have eX-
elusive jurisdiction. Now, every argument
which can be used against this bill, would APP
ply with equal force against the bill which we
have lately passed, and which has received the
sanction of the executive, abolishing slavery
In the District Of Columbia l cannot posi-
bly, see how any gentleman who could not
possibly see constitutional objection in the
one case, can see it in the other. | do not
say that there were not gentlemen who con-
sclentiously believed that the bill was uncon-
stitutional. | can easily understand how they
would come to the SANG conclusion in refer
ence to this bill but how they can get dis
uncton bEtween the cases, in a constitutional
point of view, it is not possible for me to per
ceive.
Mr.. THoMAs.-Will the gentleman call to
mind the fact that the bill for the emancipa-
ton in the District of Columbia provided
reasonable compensation, while this bill pro-
vides none whatever.
Mr.. STEvENs.-I will. If any gentleman
supposes that the compensatory portion of that
bill renders it constitutional when it was
not so before, l can understand the objection.
But l do not suppose that that was anything
more than a question of injustice | did not
suppose, indeed have hardly heard, that any
body doubted the power Of congress to abol-
ish slavery in the District of Columbia.
Mr.. THoMAs.-Wil the gentleman allow
me to call his attention to the fifth article Of
the amendments of the constitution-which
provides that private property shall not be
taken for public use without Just compensa-
ton? believe that the bill for the cmanci-
patton of slaves in the District of Columbia
came within that provision; and whether you
call it property or not, there was such right
in the loyal masters in the slaves in this Dis
trict that we were bound to afford compensa-
ton.
Mr.. STEvENs.-I did not know that the gen
tleman held that doctrine. 1t is so rare doc
trfne in the free states that did not know that
any one from that quarter held it, | suppos-
ed, that in reference to the question of slave
ry, that wherever the government had exclu-
sive power they had the right to do with it as
the states do with it-abolish it without COM
pensation. Does any man doubt that the
states have that right?
MIR. THoMAs.-Ies, sir.
Mr.. STEvENs.-Then there is one doubter
that will not be damned for that
Mr.. WICKLIFFE.-Whereh has it been abol-
ished without compensation?
Mr.. STEvENs.-In Pennsylvania.
Mr.. WICKLIFFE.-That was abolition post
nati and not an abolition of slavery.
Mr. STEVENS. If | am rightly informed,
New York did the same thing. | may be
mistaken in reference to another state, but
think Massachusetts never made any compen-
sation. / never heard that she did. | dom
believe there is any man from the free states, |
except the gentleman from the Boston district, |
who ever doubted that the legislative power |
Of any locality, where they have the exclusive
jurisdiction, have the right to abolish slavery
without compensation; and this is the first
time L ever heard the opposite idea suggested
= L
it is the last, for it is no credit to free state
to entertain such an idea.
Mr. HOoPER.-To whom does the gentle
man refer as from the Boston district?
Mr.. STEvENs.-I carried him as near Bos-
ton as I could. for 7 did NOT Ike IN saw from,
the Quincy district. for that would seem such
a humiliation.
Mr.. Thomas, of Massachusetts.-The gen
tleman need not trouble himself about hat
| undertake TO say that a majority Of thc mem
hers of this bouse = very LARGO majority
would NOT have voted for the om9nc;nofion II
slavery in the District of Columbia unless
reasonable commemorative, I,al hoo, 1,;,.or, IT,
is easv enongh 70 riJicI1Io y tlnc, in+ tba+ -
NOT to meet tbo objection Tbo nosition l.
tbis tbot if tho Law, ~ tl;s D;st,;ot u 90
;stod o+ +bn tn,a ~ 10 ~
- ',i''' Dli
raIio va III d PeLson NiiicL "'s "a
t ,,io bo ,.o nfJ VI ,l,o
ana Ill i - -
f. i tIt IN -, ttia. pioeiy
~ oo,,,l,so+i - M
A''i 'ii''' J'''
Al. S,,,-.,,
e., Nti- - ''ii7 VI " 'iiN
ia,.a 49, ~ " N 'I.''
" ON Pll,"'e loI
In iii'i1iiis JuS. No"'
,J 5 ils.l ill'o eosi Gss
Ia.ao hnnso f ,'itn, ,5 i
o Sb,,Id Ss0o pi .',iI 1 ~ tii,,o
constit'tio,, IL
Mr. Tnn,t,s-S,ob i not tho nro,isio,, of
the hin 10 NV '''N
Mr. Srr,,r>,s-Tt is i, tbo district hill T.
is mono [rra+,;+,, and NOT ;nst commons
tion No,S sir soY, a,,ain that tbe Iiharotin,,
NJ slaves IN o,,, iocaiifT yhora
: - '''' 'SAA - t7i~''''''lN
i'' 'AAfN'AN'i'ii 80 INA'VAN''i IAN0-