The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-01-31

L A
r. N. Cain (colored), offered a long resolutio
to petition the Freedmen's Bureau to loan
3 million Of dollars to the State, to be investe
: in the purchase of lands for the benefit G
+ freedmen, these lands to bu divided into ten
twenty, forty sixty, and one hundred acr
tracts, and sold to the freedmen or others, VIII
: are to have five years in which to pay for tn
{ same. Referred to Committee on Petitions.
, THE FRREDarEN's BUREAU AND EDUCATION.
The report Of the committee recommending
, the continuation of the Freedmen's Bureau
and that Bureau Of Education be established
as soon as practicable, was taken up, discussed
by B. Byas, Of Berkeley, and B. F. Randolph
both colored, and adopted.
The report OF the committee that the con
vention has power TO legislate as far as may bt
for the good of the people was, on motion o.
E. ". NJ. Maekey, laid on the table.
CONTRACTS BASED ON SLAVES.
The report of the committee on the above
subject coming up next in order, was read q
second time.
i j. NJ. Rutland. of Fairfield, said he thought
sidelation Of the convention. All matters OF
this End should be left to the courts to deter
mine, whether they are valid or not. In his
opinion 1t smacked somewhat Of the spirit OF
revenge, upon class of people who had been
/ identified with the institutions OF the past. He
QlQ IlOL SCanQ ueI0 10 AQHOCdto Uuo uloId fl6u1
| of slavery he never did believe it right for one
man to hold another in bondage, and call him
property. out such WAS the law Of the land.
Slaves were property; were bought and sold,
and Ehe country was bound to recognize them
as property, as long as the institution existed:
| II this ordinance was intended to punish all
those who dealt in slaves, it did not effect its
object at all. II these contracts were to be de-
clared null and void, the result would be SIM
ply to punish one party-he who sold the
slaves, and to pay premium to the man who
bought; and both were morally guilty. Aside
from this fact, however, the convention was as
sembled to frame constitution, and not TO do
eide quest IONS the decision Of which clearly
belongs to the courts OF law. Q. Q
s.;Corley (white), Of Lexington, followed, and
read the following speech:
Mr. President: The resolution invsidsting
all contracts, the consideration OF which was
the purchase or sale Of slaves, is of doubtful
utility, and highly dangerous as precedent,
for the guidance Of future legislation. The
Constitution Of the United States denies the
right of any State to pass an er post tdcto law,
or any law impairing the obligation Of con-
tracts. It is proposed, in the Adoption of. this
resolution, to violate this plain principle OK the
constitution, thus clearly expressed. We are
framing constitution for the purpose OF re-
constructing this State, that she may take,
once more, the proud position OF an equal IN
"Great Republic" And is it possible that any
one here expects l,er to be admitted to so noble
and honorable position by endorsing, contrary
to the letter Of the constt1to tn, repudia-
ton Of any debts or contracts whatever, Ger
tainly we cannot be 80 completely deluded
The idea that because man cannot be rightfully
held as property, is not, and cannot be, any
legsl right to his services as such, is falacious
in the premises, and therefore, entirely false in
the conclusion, and utterly untenRble In faot
and every day practice. Perhaps more than
half the members of this convention csn testify
that they were once held as slaves, bought and
sold rs property, and legally held as such, un-
der the lash Of the task-master- against the
injustice Of which there was no appeal either
in State or Federal courts. This being admitted,
what reason can be urged for setting aside any |
such contracts? LIS there any difference between
the seller and buyer IN q moral sensep Ii the |
act Of the speculator in the bones and muscles
Of man was criminal, that Of the purchaser
was equally, and euen more so. The slave
trader made no nretentions- tn -niety-as he
he aoId as q brute, aad separated from her
foraver under the sanction OF the pious priest,
who denounced the act, and yet purchased tne
child. can see no good reason Tor denyane
the sellers right to collect the purchase money
from him, whose pious clamor now denounces
the contract as an outrage upon justice and
rio'nt. IF the pious purchaser were not an
IDIOT incapable Of entering into q contract-u
he rot. in his own estimation, at that time,
value received for his obligation to pay, IL Is
NOT the right nor the legitimate business OF
this convention, whether OF not ne was Io9l
we all hold could not be rightfully claimed as
such. It does not alter the case to argue that
tlis species Of property was held by force, anu
fine pressure being removed by violence-by
relentless, cruel, bloody war-therefore, the
obligation is impaired. he who sells morse
for cash or credit does not tnereDy oDnsaoe
himself to secure to the purchaser the services
Of that Animal during his natural life. Inc
owner may 30 use him as to forfeit his rght
and title in him, and If he does forfeit that
right by violation OF law, then there remains
no right with him to deny the payment OF tne
consideration. The Shareholders OF the Soutn
concocted the rebellion for the express T paaL,
raised their hands against the best govern
ment on earth simply to keep themselves in
Office. and rivet more t,T'ty she CHAINS or the
unfortunate slave. By that rash act, anu Dy
using the services Of the slave to sustain IL,
they forfeited all rights Of properly IN the
name. under the constitution, which defines
treason and authorizes its punishment. Inc
LEGAL right Of the master being, forfeited, a. q
ths limited States Government denying the
moral right to hold such property, the legal
rieht again reverted to the original owner,
which ia the slave himself. 1t does not matter
whether ne OF nl5 IOIu1er u1uoVSt LOG Wy "a,
of sale, the fact is patent, and the gladdened
freedman feels that he is his olon master and
has The right to exercise ms o'0n pody anu
mind in the pursuit OF happiness.
.But il We admit the validity of such con-
tracts. will that admission in any way subject
the United States to liquidation OF the Claims
M loyal masters, whose property was wrencned
from their hands by the war? Certainly not
Nv permltting themselves, and the SAID prop
ertV. t1 90 used in the interest OF the rebel
lion thew forfeited every such right, by simply
Remaining in bad company. Lot saved himself
bv leayine Sodom, but if he had remained all
h}s righteousness would have been inadequate.
The Innocent must suffer with the guilty, be-
canse they acted with them. The man who
WAS loyal, and was forced into the rebel army,
though he loved the government, and was shot
as q rebel. was thus compelled to accept
the situation in the sacrifice Of life to rebel
neryerseness; and, certainly, those who could
npot or did not, prevent their property from
hs;np used by the rebellion for its success,
cannot expect to be paid by the government
for it's loss, particularly when, as military
necessity. it's destruction, as property, was es-
sential to save the life Of thenaton. The poor
man lost his life and these slave drivers only
their property; and I think tho latter have
Greatly the advantage, and may thank God
fhat thew have still their heads on. AS the
government cannot replace the heads Of loyal
men. know it never will the property Of those
who have lost less than life. am willing to
90 as far as any one, by inserting the strongest
Clauses in our constitution that can be written,
to perpetuate freedom and equal rights to oil,
but am not willing to relieve one class OF our