Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-04-21
WHOLE NO. 1889.

States respectively. They have, therefore, the
power TO abolish slavery within that District
Nay, | am willing to 90 farther. ! am willing
to allow that Congress has a right TO abolish
slavery in the District. By right, mean that
they have the power, and that no legal obstacle
exists to the exercise of that power. There is
nothing in the Constitution TO forbid il. There
is nothing in the act of cession to forbid IL. There
is nothing in the Constitution and laws OF the
States which does or which can forbid il. The
cession 10 Congress was absolute and unestrict-
ed. On these points am disposed TO raise no
question whatever.
But il is always to be remembered, that it is one
thing to say that man has a right to do partic-
ular act and very different thing to say that il
is right and Just for him TO do that particular act
The right to do the act may be absolute, but the
fitness, and propriety and justice of exercising that
right may be conditional. A man has right 70
exact the personal labor of his wife and also Of
his children during their minority. that is, he may
do il, and there is no law to prevent it; nay, IN
doing it, the law will protect him from interier-
ence. But the Justice of his exercising this right
is certainly conditional. He may do il justly if
it be necessary for their common support. But
it surely would be an atrocious violation Of jns-
tice if he should live in Incidence and splendor
and demand that they should thus labor TO main
that he has a right to do thus, and nobody could
gainsay it. A father has a right to turn his child
rem out of his house when they become of age,
and it may, under some circumstances, be exer
cised with propriety; but this by no means proves
that il would be right for parents always to doso.
A parent, worth an independent fortune, has
right to bind out his child as an apprentice to the
most loathsome and degrading occupation; but is
this right which it is fit, and proper and just at
all times to exercisel
1t is manifest then, that. granting right to
exist in the Specification above given, the ques-
ticn still remains is il right, fit and proper and
Just to be exercisedi In other words, although
we have the right to do il, yet would It be right
and just for US to do itf This is really the
point on which it seems to me the whole question
hinges
/ ask, then, in the first place, what is the OBJ
ject of the act of abolition? Is it ultimate within
itselfl Is it merely because, as citizens OF the
United States, we are opposed to slavery in any
territory over which we exercise jurisdictiong
Or is il for the sake of something Interior, that
is for the sake of creating such state of things
in the saveholdng States that the citizens Of
those States will be obliged, whether they ap
prove of it or not to abolish slavery? In so far
as this latter is the object think it unconstitu
tonal, because we have by the spirit Of the COM
pact bound ourselves to leave it to their
free will That free will we have no right,
either by ourselves or by others, to control; and
we have no right to use our power, either of
one kind or another, for this purpose. i think,
therefore, we have no right to exercise the power
which we possess for the accomplishment of this
object.
I ask, in the next place, was the power over the
District of Columbia ceded to Congress for this
purpose2 Did Maryland and Virginia anti
cipate that without their consent this use would
be made of it? Did the Southern States gene
rally, when they became parties 10 this contract,
suppose that this power would be claimed and
used by Congress? / think that all thesr ques-
tions must be answered in the negative. III so,
the right has not in fact been Internationally
given. 1t is thing out of the contract, so far
the Gnimas Of both parties were concerned. Ifit
be so, although it may be granted by the letter,
it is not granted by the spirit of the instrument,
and the right can not, without the consent of the
other party, be Justly and honorably exercised.
If l make contract with my neighbor and by
the letter Of that contract obtain a power to do
some act, which power he never intended to
convey, | can not, as an honest man, avail my
self of it. To do so is an act of knavery, and
every man of sound principles would so con-
slider it.
Now, if il be so, il matters not what may be
the purpose, for the sake of which we propose TO
take an unfair advantage. Ihave no more right
to impose upon my neighbor, when / intend TO
use the proceeds of my trickery for the purpose
of benevolence, than when / intend to use them
for the purpose of usury. The real question is,
is fright for me to interpret the contract in this
manner? If it be, may so interpret it, let me
do what | will with the gain. If it be not right,
may not so interpret it, let my intention be what
it may in regard to the proceeds.
That it would not be right for us thus TO inter
pret the contract, / think may be clearly shown
by the results of an extension of the principle
contended for. 1t must be granted that the pow
er to abolish and the power to establish, are the
same. Now, Congress possesses precisely the
same power navy yards, fortifcations,
senals, &C., belonging to the General Govern
ment, that il possesses over the District of Co
lumba. Many of these have been ceded to the
United States by the free States, and are still
embosomed within them. Congress has precise
ly the same right to abolish ID establish slave
ry in all these, as it has to abolish or establish it
in the District But would it be just, fit and
proper exercise of this right, were Congress to
establish slavery in all these little portions of ter
ritoryl Were such a thing attempted, ask any
candid man. whether we should not at once ex
claim that this power was never conferred for
this purpose; and that the contract could not be
thus interpreted, without overreaching and trick
eryl Now do not see that any principles involv-
ed in the one case, that is not involved in the
other. | say, therefore, that although the power
is conferred by the letter of the contract, il is
not conferred by the spirit; and, therefore, we
cannot use it honoTably; that is, we cannot use
il at ALL
But if the right to use this power he contin-
gent, il may be asked, when will the contingency
arise in which we can rghtfully use itf i an
swer: it may arise in several ways. First, when
ever the Southern States agree TO il. il will be
proper to use it. Secondly, whenever Maryland
or Virginia. or either of them shall abolish Stare
~, it will, think be perfectly right to use it.
The history of slavery in this country shows, that
the line of demarcation between slave and free
labor has an irresistible tendency to move south
ward. Right has a natural power over wrong,
and the advantages which il confers upon all par
ties tend, of themselves to extend its boundaries.
Maryland, but for untcward reasons to which l
will not here allude, would by this time, believe,
have nearly freed herself from the evils of slave
~. There can be no reason why Congress should
oppose anv obstacle to the natural course of
events in respect to this or any other change OF
opinion. Whenever the District would have be-
come free, if it had remained a part of the
States by which il was originally ceded. then il
will not only be the right but the duty of Con
gress TO abolish slavery. Then we can abolish it
without any infringement of right. and then, the
whole country, both North and South, must re
joice in the act
THE EXECUTION OF SHELL-DEATH or Two
BRAVE MES.-We yesterday at the State
Librarians rooms bomb SHE'LL fired by the en-
envy, but which had not exploded. We subjoin
the following with reference thereto:
CAMP CRoss TrNBERs, ARK, April 3, 1862.
The accompanying - pound shell was taken
from the breast OF LIST Lieut.. Perry Watts, of co.
K, 22d Indiana volunteers, who fell at the battle
OF Pea Ridge, Arkansas, on the 9th day Of
March, 1862 After checking the advance Of
the enemy, commanded by Mccullough and Nc
Intosh, the 22d was drawn up in the rear Of Aus.