Hide Article Text (OCR)
ore done, that he would not approve :be law if the name were retained, rhe bill, however, passed both Houses, and was sent to the Governor for lis approbation and signature. After teeping the bill two or three days be signed it as approved, and wrote at the bottom of the same page the followingr cremarks:“Indianapolis, Jan. 20, if30.“There are parts of this bill which my mind :annot sanction. The Commissioner named m it I believe to be unworthy. If it had come into my hands at an earlier period of the sos-iion, it should have become a law, if at all, without my signature; but, finding that the Legislature is ready to adjourn without permitting it to remain in my hands five dav«, I cannot consent to the sacrifice of money it must occasion to retain it Therefore I must yield to the necessity of settling the Michigan road question, so necessary to the public-quiet and interest, even at the sacrifice of my o-pinion. JAMES B. It AY.”tinginnuence to avoKi inem, are geaious ana steadfast friends of liberty and equality. But I will not do the “Member of the Bar” the injustice to pretend, that these are the kind of emigrants he was speaking of: It was the money of the slave-holding emigrant he had in view. So understood, it certainly’ was a strange argument, in a legal question of right. If it proves anv thing, it proves not only the right of Scwall to the negroes, but it proves that in the estimation of some, money will sweeten the bitterness of bondage-^-that it will counterbalance all the evils consequent upon the existence of slavery, and that at the sacrifice of , principle, morality and religion, we ought to encourage its introduction among us. Rut, “are those things so?” Are the citizens of Indiana willing that their soil shall be tilled by the labour, and watered with the tears of the African bondsman? Are they willing for the sake of paltry gain, to roar their children in theun: viuiiu oi ot.*wini imi sireuguienetL 1 nearticles of compact in the ordinance of congress for the government of the north western territory is a part of our national law, and is e-qually obligatory upon the citizens of Virginia as upon the people of Indiana or Illinois. By this compact it is stipulated that “there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude” in the territory. Illinois and Indiana are each, paits of the same territory, and each part is bound to know and respect, the rights of the other. The admission of sin very in one, would bo a violation of the rights of the other, of which she would have just and legal grounds of complaint.An attempt is made to shew that the act of congress authorising the reclamation of slaves, is remedial in its character, that it requires and has always received a libera! construction. But the “member of the bar” when “casting about” for an argument, to prove this act to bedaily view of the manacled slave; in the hear- remedial in its character must have felt coning of the driver’s lash and the sufferer’s cries, j scions that his position was untenable. It is remedial he says, because it is sutnman/anduntil misery ceases to excite their pity, or injustice and oppression to provoke their indignation?In the commencement of the argument it is distinctly admitted that “If the intention of theShortly after the bill was deposited(V re c rot. a emigrant, were to settle in Indiana, and he hasin ths ofiice of the Secretary of State, in imrJ,nco nf lbat inlerjUm, Uu-ht hi*tills unprecedented act having been made known to some of the Senators, Mr. Worth introduced a resolution calling for the bill, or ror a copy of the remarks; on the production of which Mr. Litton offered the following resolution:Resolvedy That in the opinion of the Senate, the power of the Executive over bills, which pa«s both branches of the General Assembly, does not extend to scribbling individual abuse, upon them; and that the indulgence of such propensity in the case of the bill for opening the Michigan road, is not only an uneourtcous reflection upon the discrimination of the Legislature, but a manifestation of spleen unauthorised by the Constitution, or official propri-ety.”This resolution was adopted by a large majority, five Senators onlv voting against it. Comment on this conduct of the Governor is unnecessary. A hare recital of the facts will enable every reader to form a correct opinion in relation to it, and to pronounce upon it that sentence which it merits. The judgment of the Senate, as embraced in Mr. Linftov’s resolution, is certainly full and emnhatic.slaves into the state,” they are free. After making this admission, the counsellor takes occasion to occimy more than a column, in a disrday of legal and historical learning, of eloquence and of feeling, on the subject of intention. This would seem to be a useless expenditure of strength after his admission, if the author’s primary object already alluded to, is not kept in view. In this parade to prove what was not denied, or to disprove what was not asserted, an opportunity is a Horded to introduce a reference to the laws of England, andan admirable change is rung upon imaginative treasons, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, during the times of “barbarous and bloodthirsty factions;” all no doubt, to display his great sagacity in detecting the monstrous absurdity of the opinions of Judge Morris, on the subject of holding slaves in Indiana and Illinois. If hr had extended his researches into that branch of the English law, which defines the personal rights of individuals, he would have found that in England, tyrannical and oppressive as her government may be, personal slavery ran not exist; that the moment theslave touches her shores, his shackle * fall and he “stands redeemed and disenthralled*.” Andbecause it “authorises a seizure without, warrants'* and provides an expeditious proceeding by exparte testimony. These are the very reasons that would be assigned by a lawyer who was not “casting about” for arguments to sustain a position contrary to generally received principles and maxims, why the act should be strictly construed. The law is highly penal in its consequences, as it authorizes a seizure without warrant, and by a summary proceeding, divests an individual of his liberty Without even accusing him of a crime. I have always understood that laws of this character were to he strictly construed; and even in ordinary cases,where a summary proceeding is authorized by law, the party is always required to pursue the remedy strictly, after clearly shewing that !.o has the legal right to adopt this form of proceeding. Nor is the member of the bar much more fortunate in his attempt to prove, that this law has always received n liberal construction. lie proves indeed, that Judge Parke has always so decided; but he utterly fails in producing a solitary collateral case. He refers to two decisions in Pennsylvania ; but these cases when understood will be found, in the principles to be deduced from a view of all the facts in connexion with the law, to go farther than Judge Morris has gone in his opinion. 1 will give a short statement of one of the cases, that the public may see to what extremities the counsel were reduced for authorities. At the time of the revolution,zens, unless ioe -ed by the federal compact, or permission legally given by our state authorities. If these principles hacf been denied or their inapplicabilityto the facts of the case demonstrated, the “Member of the Bar” might, with a little more propriety, have denominated his production an “argument;” but they arc passed over in si lence, leaving us in doubt, whether the coun seller was unwilling to endanger his legal re nutation by encountering them, or that hismind “elevated and expanded to the dimensions of the subject,” lost sight of every thing but the impolicy, the impoliteness, and the hardship of the case, considered with reference to the opinions, the feelings, and the interestsof the Virginia slave-holder.The cases referred to by Judge Morris, are also passed over without notice or comment. If they are not appropriate to the case, the fact could easily have been demonstrated If they are not sound expositions of the law, it would have entitled the “Member of the Bar” to t he lasting gratitude of the owners of slaves in Maryland and Kentucky, if he had demon stated that their courts did not go far enoughDougDoubGam I Gunf Greei Gwinin protecting their rights in slave property.1 A CITIZEN.Hem] Husk Ha rsi Hilyt HoopH * r*jHolirHarrKikeKedKeitlKlimAlt;Tat ththis too, whether his master is a citizen of a for- slavery existed ton certain extent in Penn.eign country casually resident or visiting there, a citizen of that country, or of one of the colonies owing allegiance to the British crown.—And is the soil of America, which has been sanctified by the blood of the revolution, less free? Are we less tenacious of the rights of man, or more deaf to the voice of humanity and theA communication by “Jin Eye end Ear Witness^’ on the subject of the debate which recently took place in thistown between Mr. Ray and Mr. Kid-well, has been received, and will be attended to hereafter.sylvania. Soon after the formation of their state government, the legislature passed a law for the gradual abolition of slavery, in which it was provided, that persons casually resident in the state might hold their slaves for six months; and foreign ministers and members of congress, (the seat of the federal government then being in Philadelphia,) might hold theirADJOURNMENT.Previous to adjourning the House of Representatives sine die, a resolution of thanks having been adopted, Mr. Speaker Smiley delivered the following valedictory address:Gentlemen of the House of Representatives ;The labours of the proent session are at length brought to a close, and the pleasing prospect of soon returning to our families and friends, now presents itself.Before we separate from the theatre of our public action, where it. is not probable we shall all ever meet a-gain, you will permit me to avail myself of the opportunity of again tendering to you my sincere acknowledge merits, and to express with increased gratitude the weighty obligations 1 am under to you, collectively and individ □ally, for that preferment with which you have bepn pleased to honour me, not only for the confidence manifested by electing me to preside over your deliberations, hot also for the very flattering testimonial of your approbationas expressed in the resolution recently adopted.If my official services may have metyearchaeThesuchAfur ‘ dayrealfronwitTov a erf dec. that firm leasjfooidollbahtherityJdemands of justice, than the country from riumnmpma,; imgr.L m m u uir ✓ in■ xi 11‘ j* t slaves d tin no* the tune thev continued to dis- Wltll VOUr approbation dS expressed inwhose thraldom our emancioation is our great-i, ^ uiij uHiuimeu ‘ rl »est boast? Toll it not in Eurooc; publish it charge their several functions. J.angdon Che- the resolution referred to I cannot beThe Legislature adjourned on Saturday morning last, having been in session nearly eight weeks. A list of all the acts, joint resolutions, and memorials, passed during the session, willbe found in the preceding columns.not on the plains of Mexico or Colombia, lest the Genius of Liberty' blush for the degenerate sons of the founders of the American Republic. The admission that “an emigration to orvcs, a member of congress from South Carolina, after an adjournment of a session, hired a house in Germantown, where he resided until the subsequent session. During this time and after he had resided in Pa. more than sixwithin the borders of any free state for the gen- .cral purposes or with the intention of settling months, one of his slaves escaped, and the within such state, would occasion the forfeit- question was raised, whether the provision ofFOIL THE JOUItNAI. Messrs. Editors: In your last number, I observed a “sketch of the argument of counsel” before Judge Parke, on the hearing of the ease of Sewall against Nelly and others, persons of colour. Presuming that Judge Morns will not have leisure, if so disposed, to enter the Geld of controversy with every individual that may feel anxious to avail himself of the present occasion to increase his popularity, by assailing his opinion, and distinguishing himself among the most clamorous of the supporters of the slave-holding interests, in derogation of the rights of man, and the essential sovereignty and independence of the state; I shall ventureto submit a few remarks upon this‘argument.’I am not ignorant of the obloquy that must be encountered by any one that utters a sentiment in favor of the decision of Judge Morris; and I am aware that among some who are candidates for public favor, it is thought to be unpopular to defend the legal or natural rights of the oppressed and unfortunate Africans; but as I have heard of no other punishment denounced against those that may concur with Judge Morris, in recognizing the rights of the oppressed, and maintaining the immutable principles of justice and equality, as recognized in our constitution, than exclusion from office am willing to encounter the hazard of maintaining the principles of freedom at the expense of popularity.It is not unusual for counsel to submit tbeir arguments to the public, when the decision of the court is contrary to their honest convictions of the law of the case; bat when an attorney publishes his argument in a case that has produced considerable public excitement, and which has been decided in accordance with theure of the right of oroperty to the slaves thus introduced into such free state,” is, as I conceive, a concession of the whole ground; nor can the counsel escape from the consequences of the admission. ‘The member of the bar,’ labors to prove that the right of the slaves in this case could not accrue until t hey were carried into Illinois; but no such distinction can exist in the nature of things. The right to freedom accrues in consequence of the removal from the slave stale with the intention of settling in a free state. The law operates for the enfranchisement of the slaves, not the punishment of the master. The slave holder, by bringing his slaves into Indiana, violates no law; be has precisely the same right to bring them with him that he has to bring his horses or cattle. But if he does remove with them, the principles of our constitution immediately act for their benefit and dissolve their obligations to servitude. The right of the slave to his freedom, i*s as perfect in Ohio or Indiana as in Illinois, the point of destination. In notes appended to bis opinion, judge Morris cited two cases directly in point, decided by courts in slave states, the authority of which ought not, on questions of this kind, to be doubted. As the member of the bar has not remarked upon these cases, it is probable he has not noticed the reference: I will again cite them for his examination. A citizen and resident of Maryland, hired his slave for a short time to a citizen of Pennsylvania. The negro afterwards returned into Maryland into the. possession of his master, and subsequently sued for his freedom. The general court of that state, decided that the act of hiring him in Pennsylvania, entitled him to his freedom. (4 Harris McHenry, Rep. 418.) The case decided in the Appelate court of Kentucky, 1 Bibb, 425, was a claim of the right of freedom, on the ground that the master emigrating from Virginia to Kentucky came to the Ohio river, and being prevented from descending, on account of the danger apprehended from the savages, who then infested the river, resided temporarily in Pennsylvania until the danger was past, and then continued his joup-the act of Pennsylvania, in favour of members of congress, extended to a residence within the state daring the period of adjournment; and the court decided that the right of Mr. Cheves was not divested. Mr. Cheves was a member of congress residing within the state during an adjournment; he was strictly within the provision of the statute. And what is the plain common sense conclusion to be drawn from this case? It is that but for the statute of Pa. no casual resident or visiter, no member of congress, or foreign minister, could for an hour, hold their slaves, if they carried themwithin the boundaries of the state. The fact of the enactment of such a provision by the legislature of Pa. is conclusive evidence that it was considered that the constitution and law of the state, would emancipate every slave brought by his master within their limits, without this saving exception. The new fangled doctrines of a right to slaves in transitu, of comity and decency to stranger? and emigrants, were not then thought of by the people of Pennsylvania.A considerable portion of'the argument, is an attempt to prove that Scwall is still a citizen of Virginia, and can still exercise all the rights appertaining to such citizenship; although he emigrated from that state with his family with the intention of settling in Illinois, declared his determination of never again residing in a slave state, and in hh affidavit before judge Parke describes himself us being of yirginia.” If an emigrant from Virginia permanently resident among u« is still entitledto all the rights of a citizen of that state, until he ncqnitea a citizenship here by a residence of twelve months, he could at any time before such right accrued, return to Virginia and vote, serve on juries, c. And if this adhesive character of a citizen of Virginia invests him with the right of holding slaves, wherever may be his location, he could hold his slaves in thissUte, until the last day of the year, then remove a-cross the Ohio, find on the first day of th«,en-piiing year return, and so on during life. I hive always underload it to bo a republican dooso vain as to presume that the merit all belongs to myself. The burthen of the Chair has been rendered less arduous, and the business greatly facilitated by that generous aid and indulgence so liberally extended to me on all occasions. And be assured that the unremitting marks of your personal friendship, so strikingly manifestedthroughout the session, shall be by meever cherished and remembered with the warmest feelings of my heart, and adverted to as one of the happiest e-vents of my life.Much business, both of a general and local nature, has been transacted at this session—perhaps more than at any preceding legislaf ureof this state. Whether our acts will all comport with the best interests of the state, and meet the approbation of our constituents, time alone can determine. One consolation we have, that our pro ductiona have been the result of caution and due reflection, and have all acted under the ardent zeal and desire promoting the best interests of the state..But if, in the course of the session, any unfriendly feelings may have been excited on the part of any of us, permit me earnestly to request thaMhose feel togs may now cease, and the cause? which may have excited them he forever buried in oblivion; and that the friendship and acquaintance natural l formed amongst us, while labouring together in the service of our cornmoi country, may be cherished by each one of us to our latest breath.The time has now arrived that weJ1Y»of»!Plt;tnincbOlI1hrcV.1tt
Newspaper Details
Indianapolis Indiana Journal
Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Wed, Feb 03, 1830
Page 3
Full Page
Clipped by
Anonymous
USA 10 Jul 2020
Other Publications Near Indianapolis, Indiana
Indianapolis Daily Sentinel
Indianapolis Republican Convention
Indianapolis Daily State Sentinel
Indianapolis Indiana Democrat
Indianapolis Press
