Year: 1862

within the protection Of that Constitution
which says that no man who owns prop
perty shall be deprived Of it except by
the judgement Of his peers and the laws
Of the land, or by due process Of law


Now what is "peocess Of law ?"-
What is the judgement Of his peers p
We all know what these expressions are.
They are legal terms. The "peers" there
alluded 70 arc jurymen. The process Of
law alluded to is, as defined by Coke and
every other jusist, a judicial trial. That
is the process Of law by which mans
property can be taken from him.


| may not be correct iD my application
Of this great principle to this bill. DO
not mean to state anything further than
my convictions authorize me to do. | do
not know that the question has such ap-
plication that it ought to stay our hand.
l confess | do not know how the argu-
mcnt that is to be derived from this ques
tion of constitutional protection is TO be
avoided. 1t is not an argument against
your power to do this thing so much as
1t is an endeavor to call to your mind all
the considerations which render this thing
now iniudicious and hazardous more so
now than in any past time, when there
was reason enough in the opinion Of our
predecessors for rejecting it.


Mr.. Chairman, | have said more upon
this branch Of the aubiect than intend
cd but is so connected with that other
question directly involved in this meas
urc, that / could not well complete ny
argument without adyerting to it.


There are, as have said, various prop
ositions before the House for the confs
cation of property, including slaves anC
another series of them for direct manu-
mission, or the liberation of slaves by
manumisaion. Now, the question is
whether we have the power to do it ?
We have declared over and over again
this Congress has declared more than
once, with almost entire unanimity
that Congress had no power to interfere
with slavery in the States that it was a
subject of local, domestic jurisdiction,
that, with all other subjects of this class,
belonged exclusively to State authority.
/ Would you change that great principle
OF our Government


The General Government was to have
and exercise only those great national
powers which were necessary to US as a
whole community. The government OF
the States was left to the States. THEN
institutions, the management of their ser
wants, and all the relations of domestic
life, were left to the States, and woulC
you strike out that principle? -? The reg
ulation of this labor, OF all those relations
which may exist by virtue Of the imploy
ment of labor, by hiring, or by buying
or by appronticing-cverything of thii
sort of local character, belongs to thu
local jurisdiction. Congress has no right
to interfere with it, 1t is a great law oi
Jurisdiction which renders this Govern
ment tolerable. Congress would be en-
| tirely incompetent to the exercise of thi,
local jurisdiction and if they undertook
to exercise it, they would do it very un-
satisfactorily. You have no power to in
terlere with it in the States. How dc
you derive that power? Where do we get
the power to conliscate or to liberate
1t is not in the Constitution. You your
selves have conceded that it never was in
tended to be there but that this power
| is in the State alone. Yourselves have
conceded that.


Now You are called upon to say by act OF
Congress that this property, or these
persons, that these slaves, shall be eman-
cipated.


Mr.. SHELLABARGEE. May l make an
inquiry of the distinguished gentl men
from Kentucky. l make it that may
have the pleasure of hearing him, not to
| find fault with the argument he is making
He has assimilated the property Of q
master In his apprentices and so far as i,
necessary to test the legal principle he
is discussing, it may also be assimilated
to the property of a parent in his minol
child. Now the inquiry | wish to make
is this suppose at the time Of taking {
statutory apprentice, or at the time o
the birth of child, the age of majority
for the child and the expiration of the ap
premiership is fixed by the law Of this
District, or ofany of the States, at the
age of twenty years; and suppose the
State or the Legislature of this District,
in the exercise of municipal legislation,
should change the law so as to terminate
the minority and the apprenticeship at
eighteen instead of at twenty-one years,
and thus should take from the parent and
from the master three years Of service,
would that be depriving the citizen OF
property without due process of law,
within the meaning of Magma Charta or
of the Constitution of the United States?
Is not the property in these personal re-
lations within the full control of the mu-
nicipal legislation Of every supreme leg
! islaturc


Mr. CRTrENpEN. 1t seems to me the
gentleman's whole proposition would be
answered by my saying to him that the
/ United States have no right to prescribe
any age Of majority--the States have ;
and the States have right to dispose
of slavery as they please.


Mr. SuELLABARGER. Permit me to say
word.


Mr., CRrTENDEN. am willing to yield
all courtesy to the gentleman from Ohio,
but find if do not go Cd that shall
be taken out of my course, and my time
will be consumed.


War is surpassed TO give us this pow,
er, which peace does not. The Consti'
tuition denies it in time Of peace, Thai
| may assume as granted by all-tha
there is none so bold to deny it, But thu
state of war is supposed to give tho pow
- -