Proceedings of the United States Senate, on the Fugitive Slave Bill, the Abolition of the Slave-Trade in the District of Columbia
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Making of America Books Basic | Boolean | Proximity |

Bibliographic | Search History

UMDL Texts home U of M login View bookbag your bookbag has 0 items

Home Search BrowseHelp

list of all pages | add to bookbag

Title:Proceedings of the United States Senate, on the fugitive slave bill,—the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia,—and the imprisonment of free colored seamen in the southern ports: with the speeches of Messrs. Davis, Winthrop and others.

Author:United States. 31st Congress, 1st session, 1849-1850. Senate.

Availability:These pages may freely searched and displayed.

Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact umdl-info@umich.edu for more information.

Print Source:Proceedings of the United States Senate, on the fugitive slave bill,—the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia,—and the imprisonment of free colored seamen in the southern ports: with the speeches of Messrs. Davis, Winthrop and others.

United States. 31st Congress, 1st session, 1849-1850. Senate.

68 p. 23 cm.

[Washington]

Press of T. R. Marvin,

[1850].

Page i view page image

I >” ‘ tol’.. (Jt~’ ,,,;,‘I “Is Asg’@ PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES

SENATE, -11 -9 l,5,+_ 1Q,._. i~, q7. ON THE Fugitive Slave Bill,-The Abolition of the Slave Trade in the District of Columbia, -and the Imprisonment of Free Colored Seamen in the Southern Ports: WITH THE

SPEECHES OF MESSRS. DAVIS, WINTHROP AND OTHERS. Fress of T. R. Marvin, 24

Congress Street. I .I( uj;:’, @ .P 173 

Page ii view page image

Page 1 view page image

n’.1,; Ad,’ $ - 4 J~~lrfeItg *of -be Ocnate, ON THE FUGITIVE SLAVE

BILL,-TTHE ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,-AND

THE IMPRISONMENT OF FREE COLORED SEAMEN IN THE SOUTHERN PORTS: WITH THE

SPEECHES OF MESSRS. DAVIS, WINTHROP, AND OTHERS. SENATE OF THE UNITED

STATES, MONDAY, AUG. 19, 1850. THE B1ll for the recapture of Fugitive Slaves being under consideration, Mr. DAYTON of New Jersey offered an amendment providing for a TRIAL by JURY. - The amendment was advocated by Messrs. Dayton, Winthrop, Wiker and Chase, and opposed by Messrs. Mason, Berrien, Butler, Underwood~nd Davis of Mississippi. The question being taken by yeas and nays, the amendment was rejected by the following vote: YEAs.-Messrs. Chase, DAVIS of Massachusetts, DAYTON, Dodge of Wisconsin, GREENE, Iamlin, PHELPS, SMITH, UPHAM, Walker, WINTHROP-11.* NAYS -Messrs.

Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Bl~tler, Cass, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Houston, Jones, King, MIappgaIm, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soul6, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Wales, Yulee-27. Mr. WINTHROP then proposed an amendment providing that no certificate of any Commnissioner should be an answer to a writ of HABEAS CORPUS. The amendment was advocated by Messrs. Winthrop and Dayton, and opposed by Messrs. Mason and Berrien. The question being taken by yeas and nays, the amendment was rejected by the following vote:  YEAS.-Messrs. Chase, DAVIS of Massachusetts, DAYTON, Dodge of }Visconsin, GREENE, PHELPS, SMITH,‘UPHAM, Wales, Walker and WINTHROP-11.

NAYS -Messrs Atchison, Bad(ger, Barynwell, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Butler, Cass, Davis of Mississippi, l)awson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Houston, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Russk, Sebastian, Shields, Soule6, Sturgeon, Turney,, Underwood, and Yulee-26. r,, The further consideration of the subject was then postponed until to  morrow. l- - - * The names of Northern Whigs are designated by capitals, and of Northern Democrats byitalics. ‘-k i e t_’}-^!………., ,. X”t t IX.!,<.pe ic.. 11 s: <

Page 2 view page image

FRIDAY, Auc. 03, IS50. Various other amendments having been disposed of,-Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the bill by adding the following as an additional section Sec.. Ind be it further enacted, That if any mariner or other free colored person arriving on board of any vessel in any port or place in the United States shall be imprisoned or deprived of his liberty without any alleged crime or offence against law, it shall in all such cases be the duty of the District Attorney of the United States within and for the district where such imprisonment or detention may occur, to cause any such person so imprisoned or detained to be brought by writ of habeas corpus before the circuit or district judge of such district, and it shall be the duty of the judge before whom any such person is brought, to inquire into and decide whether such imprisonment or detention is lawful, and if he find the same to be unlawful, he shall thereupon discharge from custody any such person. And the necessary charges incurred in suing out such process and prosecuting the same, shall, when the same are approved by the judge hearing the case, be paid by the United States;. in the same manner as similar charges are now allowed in criminal prosecutions. Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts. I have been desirous that the bill should be matured, so as to take the form in which it will be submitted for our votes, before I should offer the proposition which has just been read. This amendment speaks for itself, and shows pretty distinctly what the object is. NomTodifi.ation of the bill is proposed, but a distinct matter making another section. Several of the Southern States in which slavery exists, have enacted laws by which they authorize officers of their own, whenever a vessel arrives from without any such State, to visit her, and to take into custody_ such free colored persons as are found on board, as mariners or otherwise, and commit them to prison, where they are to remain while the vessel lies’in port. The colored portion of the crew is thus taken away, and the master is required to pay the expenses of detention in prison before they are restored. This has been the cause of very serious complaint, both on the part of those who are thus confined, and of the navigators who employ them, and representations of the abuse have been frequently made to the Government of Massachusetts, asking for the interference of that State so far as to protect them against this aggression on their rights. In order to show the true state of this question, and the necessity for some provision on the part of Congress, I must enter into a brief explanation of what has occurred between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and South Carolina. Vessels from Massachusetts, in the prosecution of ordinary commercial business, visited the port of Charleston, in South Carolina, and the free colored persons on board were, under a law of this description, taken out and placed in confinement there. The Legislature of Massachusetts listened to the complaints, and deemed it to be their duty to make some p:ovision to bring the question which existed between the States to an issue in the courts of justice. The question at issue was this: The State of Massachusetts admits this class of persons to be citizens of the commonwealth. They are treated as such, have the right of voting, and all the other rights of citizenship. South Carolina denies that they are citizens of that State, and on this founds a right to seize and punish them, without any allegation of crime or misconduct. The Constitution of the United States declares that the citi. zens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. The question then arises, is a citizen of Massachusetts entitled in South Carolina to the privileges and immunities of a citizen of that State? This being denied, the State of Massachusetts thought it to be her duty to institute some means of inquiring into this sub 2 I

Page 3 view page image

3 * ject, and causing a judicial investigation, to settle and determine whether or not it was legal and lawful to subject these individuals to this coifinement, on the ground that they are not citizens. They accordingly authorized the Governor to appoint an agent in the State of South Carolina, and in any other place where these occurrences took place, to bring that question before the tribunals of the United States, in order that a decision might be had. The Governor appointed, as agent in South Carolina for that purpose, a highly respectable professional gentleman, in the city of Charleston, who declined accepting the office. The Governor then appointed another gen ileman of the bar in’ the same city, who also declined accepting the office. He thereupon appointed an eminent citizen of Massachusetts, and sent him there for’this purpose. Well, sir, in order that there might be no misappre hension or misunderstanding, this gentleman, on his arrival, addressed a letter to the Gover:ior of South Carolina stating the object of his visit. Tile following is the letter: ”’

CHARLESTON, November 28, 1844. “SIR: Your Excellency is already informed of remonstrances made by the Conmmonwealth of Massachusetts against the arrest and imprisonment of her citizens in South Carolina, against whom the commission of no crime is alleged. The Legislature of Massachusetts has recently passed a resolve authorizing the Governor of the State to appoint an agent’ for the purpose of collecting and transmitting accurate information respecting the number and the names of citizens of Massachusetts who have heretofore been or may be, during the period of the engagement of the agent, imprisoned without the allegation of any crime.’

The agent is also authorized to bring and prosecute one or more suits in behalf of any citizen that may be so imprisoned, at the expense of Massachusetts, for the purpose of having the legality of such imprisonment tried and determined in the Supreme Court of the United States. ” The Governor of Massachusetts has appointed me an agent of that State to execute the purposes above mentioned, and I arrived in this city this morning for that purpose. “I do not know that your Excellency will consider it proper in any way to notice this subject, yet propriety seemed to require this communication. “WVith great respect, your Excellency’s obedient servant, “SAMUEL HOAR. “His Excellency J. H. ItAMMOND, Governor of South Carolina.” Well, sir, the Governor of South Carolina, instead of returning an answer to this individual, laid the subject before the Legislature, and the populace of Charleston took it up also, without waiting for the action of, the Governor or any other authority. I Will not enter more particularly into details of the occurrences at Charleston, hut this gentleman, as he states in his official report, was compelled, from what was done and said, t,,) leave the place. The Legislature of South Carolina immediately took up the message of the Governor communicating the letter of the agent, and passed certain resolutions in relation to iis subject, amongst which was one authorizing ihe Governor to expel this individual from the State. The following are the resolutions: ” 1.

Resolved, That the right to exclude from their territories seditious persons or others, whose presence may be dangerous to their peace, is essential to every independent State. “2. Resolved, That free negroes and persons of color are not citizens of the United States, within the meaning of the Constitution, which confers upon the citizens of one State the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States. ” 3.

Resolved, That the emissary sent’by the State of Massachusetts to te State of South Carolina, with the avowed purpose of interfering with her institutions and disturbing her peace, is to be regarded in the character he has assumed, and to be treatled accordingrly

Page 4 view page image

4 “4. Resolved, That his excellency the Governor be requested to expel from our territory the said agent, after due notice to depart, and that the Legislature will sustain the Executive authority in any measure it may adopt for the purpose aforesaid.” They also passed an extraordinary law, iis addition to existing laws, which, if I can rightly understand the substance of it, is, that it shall be criminal for any person to undertake to obstruct, or hinder, or interfere with the operation of the laws of South Carolina by which individuals are confined, or, in other words, precluding these individuals from the.right of having this question settled in the courts of justice. This is the law, passed in 1844: 4’ An Act to provide for the punishment of persons disturbing the peace of this State in relation to slaves and free persons of color. “1st. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, now met and sitting in general assembly, and by the authority of the same, That any person or persons who shall, on his, her, or their own behalf, or under color or in virtue of any commission or authority from any State or public authority of any State in this Union, or of any foreign Power, come within the limits of this State for the purpose of, or with the intent to disturb, counteract, or hinder the operation of such laws and regulations as have been or shall be made by the public authorities of this State in relation to slaves or free persons of color, such person or persons shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be committed for trial’to the common jail of the district, by any one of the judges of the courts of law or equity, or the Recorder of the city of Charleston, unless admitted to bail by the said judge or recorder, and, upon conviction thereof by any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be sentenced to banishment from the State, and to such fine and imprisonment as may be’deemed fitting by the court which shall have tried such offence. “2d. That any person within this State who shall at any time accept any commission or authority from any State, or public authority of any State in this Union, or from any foreign Power, in relation to slaves or free persons of color, and who shall commit any overt act with intent to disturb the peace or security of this State or with intent to disturb, counteract or hinder the operation of the laws or regulations of the public authorities of this State, made, or to be made, in relation to slaves or free persons of color, such person shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof before any competent court, shall be sentenced to pay, for the first offence, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and to be imprisoned not exceeding one year; and for the second offence he shall be imprisoned for seven years, and pay a fine not less than one thousand dollars, or be banished from the State, as the court may see fit. ” 3d. That the Governor for the time being shall require any person or persons, who shall or may have come within the limits of this State, on his, her, or their own behalf, or under color or in virtue of any commission or authority from any State in this Union, or from any foreign Power, having relation to the laws or regulations of this State on the subject of slaves or free persons of color, to depart from the limits of this State within forty-eight hours after such notice, and such person shall thereupon be bound to depart; and in case of his neglect or refusal so to depart as aforesaid; the said person shall be committed by the same authority hereinbefore stated for trial in the common jail of the district, unless admitted to bail as hereinbefore stated; and upon due conviction before any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be sentenced to be banished from the State, and to such fine and imprisonment as the court shall think expedient. “4th. That any person who shall be convicted a second or any subsequent time, under the provisions of the first or third sections of this act, shall be imprisoned for a term not less than seven years, and shall pay a fine not less than one thousand dollars, and shall, in addition thereto, be banished from the State. “5th. That it shall be the duty of the sheriff of the district to see that any sentence of banishment be duly executed, and that the offender be sent without the limits aof the State; and in case any person so banished shall return within the State, (unless by unavoidable accident,) the sheriff of the district where he may be found shall hold him in close confinement, under the original sentence, until such offender shall enter into recognizance before the clerk of the court, with sufficient i

Page 5 view page image

5 sureties, to comply with the terms of said sentence, and forever to remain without the limits of the said State.” In addition to this, there is an act denying the right of such person to the writ of habeas corpus.

There the question stands from that day to this. Trhe doors of the courts of justice are effectually closed, and apparently forever closed. There the question, I say, stands-upon these facts and these laws, which exist in South Carolina and elsewhere, and are enforced against persons of this description. Thus far there have been no means of bringing to the test the validity of such laws. While South Carolina denies that people of this description are citizens entitled to the privileges conferred* by the constitution, Massachusetts and many other States admit them to the rights of citizens. They treat them as such, and they claim that the provisions of the constitution extend to and embrace them, and being citizens of Massachusetts, they of right may claim the privileges and immunities of citizens of South Carolina, or in any other State that belongs to the Union. All that I wish to state, at this late hour-of the day, is, that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been anxious to do one single thing, and nothitng else, and that is, to submit this question to the tribunal which the constitution has provided for its final settlement. She is anxious for nothing else but that the question should be submitted to the tribunal which the constitution has provided, and that that tribunal should settle it by deciding whether or not these laws of other States are constitutional. If they are decided to be constitutional acts, then she will acquiesce in such decision. If, on the contrary, they are not constitutional acts-if they are in violation of the rights of these citizens, then it seems to me only fair and just that the doors of the courts which are now closed should be opened, and the question should be brought to a determination, that they may know what their rights are. I might enter much more largely into this question, and discuss the question of citizenship, but it has really nothing to do with this simple act of legislation. I do not propose to settle the question here, but to provide that it may be settled by the proper judicial tribunal. My amendment proposes that, and nothing else. It provides that it shall be the duty of the district attorney, where persons of this description are seized and imprisoned, in the manner described, by a writof habeas corpus to bring them before the district or circuit court, and let the question be decided there, at the expense of the United States Government; which is, as it seems to me, very reasonable, because the Senate well knows, without my stating it, the fact that these colored persons, who ordinarily go out as cooks and in other subordinate capacities on board vessels, are quite incapable of asserting their own rights; and it seems but just towards them that the United States should do it. It is due to Massachusetts, and other States which have similar causes of complaint; and now is the time and this the place to do justice and allay excitement in all quarters. Mr.

BUTLER. I am not prepared, I must confess, to enter upon the discussion of this subject this evening, but, if allowed time, I believe I can fully vindicate the laws of the State which I in part represent. Indeed, I have once before argued this same questiob. To say, as has been boldly said here, that it is in the power of Massachusetts to make citizens and give them rights in South Carolina different from what persons of a similar character in that State would have, is a proposition calculated to arrest marked attention, and to startle the public mind in the States which enter taim a different notion on this subject. But first, let me ask, why is this proposition directed particularly to South Carolina, or to the Southern States alone? I understand that Illinois, and some other of the Northwestern States, have in their constiutions prohibitory clauses, denying to persons ot this character the right to become citizens; and why not refer to them also? 1*

Page 6 view page image

6 It is true that the constitution declares that the citizens of one State shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of another State; but I assert here that there can be no such thing as making a colored man a citizen of South Carolina. By the laws of South Carolina no such person is capable of attaining that status. A free man of color there may and does possess many civil rights. He can sue and be sued, has the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, and has the right of holding property the same as a white man-and, by the by, many of them hold slaves there. In fact, he has all the rights, except what may be called the complete right, of citizen*ship. Arid this right the legislation of no other State can give him in the State of South Carolina. There can be no such thing, therefore, as one State making citizens of a particular class of persons, arid endowing them with privileges and rights superior to and beyond what are enjoyed by per sons of a similar character in any State to which they may go. This, how ever, is a question which I am not prepared to argue fully at this moment, nor do I think it is one that is germane to this bill at all. If it is pressed, however, I will procure the evidence, and show that these acts of South Carolina, of Louisiana, and perhaps of Georgia, are no more stringent on this subject than are the provisions of the constitutions of some of the non slaveholding States. Illinois certainly has a clause, not only not recognizing colored persons as capable of becoming citizens, but denying them the right of a local residence. Sir, would it not be a novel principle to introduce in our political relations, to say that it is in the power of Massachusetts to confer on my slave the right to return and claim privileges in South Caro lina, to which, under the laws of that State, he could never have been entitled even had’he remained there, or even to claim those rights appertaining to free persons of color which he had forfeited by his escape fromn the State? It is a monstrous proposition. A slave escapes from me in South Carolina and goes to Massachusetts; he obtains his freedom there by a refusal to surrender him up, and he is made a governor-I suppose he may be made a governor, or brigadier general, or something of that description in Massachusetts. Mr. DAVIS of Massachusetts. Yes, sir. Mr. BUTLER. So I supposed, sir. Well, General Snowball comes back to South Carolina, and he goes to his master, and tells him, “Sir, I am a citizen, and I demand to be put in the enjoyment of all the rights to which the white citizen is entitled. 1 demand the right to go into your society, to go into all your public assemblages, to go into your churches-in a word I demand all the rights which appertain to any free citizen of South Carolina!” The idea is preposterous, not to say revolting, I know that this is thought in the abstract to be a very innocent kind of legislation, but in the concrete, gentlemen, I am sure, do not understand what they are legislating upon.

But, sir, I repeat, I do not intend to go into this argument this evening, and if this amendment is insisted upon, I shall ask, as a matter of courtesy, that it be postponed until to-morrow, or Monday. Mr. FOOTE. I suppose that we are all familiar with the argument. Mr. BUTLER. All are not so familiar with it as the Senator, nor am I as prompt, perhaps, in these matters as he. It is a grave question, and deserves full investigation and consideration. Mr. FOOTE. I merely intended to say that I had heard the able argument of the Senator on this subject, on a former occasion, and supposed we were all familiar with it. Mr. BUTLER. The question is of too serious import to be thus disposed of. I could procure, I suppose, the materials and references which I require, after some delay, but I hope the amendment will not be pressed this evening. I feel bound, however, inasmuch as it is a matter touching the i

Page 7 view page image

7 courtesies of society il South Carolina, to say a word in reference to the treatment experienced by the gentlemani sent from Massachusetts, to which allusion has been made. I think, sir, after the many refusals which had been intimated to Massachusetts on this subject, that when she insisted on sending Mr. Hoar there, it was, under the circumstances, a proceeding very well cal culated to excite the popular feeling. He went there, however, with his daughter, and on the occasion referred to, the gentlemen of Charleston,9 with marked courtesy and delicacy, so far from permitting the crowd which the excitement had collected to go to the house where they were, absolutely prevented it. Mr. Hoar was understood to be a gentleman, a man of pro fessional position in his own State, and my friend Mr. Rose, who was one of the committee appointed on the occasion, politely invited the daughter to \his own house. He said also to Mr. Hoar, ” We do not require you to teave Charleston. You are perfectly welcome, and we invite you to share 1lly in,all the social relations of our society. All we ask of you is to give up this commission, and not attempt to interfere with this question here.” I wll not deny that the gentleman was placed in an embarrassing position urider the circumstances, as a man of honor, in view of the relations in wh’ich he stood towards his State; but in justice to the people of South Carolina. and particularly the people of Charleston, I wish to-say that there was no nmob on that occasion. The fact is, there was a strong popular feel ing, but this is the mode in which they treated this gentleman-they merely asked him to give up his commission, arnd refrain from acting under it. Mr. Hoar replied that he must retain his commission, and discharge his duty to his State, so far as he could, and it was then said to him, “if that be your situation, we intimate that you had better leave the city,” and on that inti mation he did leave. Not a hand was raised against him, and such was the delicacy with which he and his daughter were treated in this matter, that she might have continued to reside in and enjoy the society of Charleston, and hardly have known that any thing of the kind had occurred. She never would have known it, from her own observation. I knrow that this matter has been variously represented, but these are the facts, and I have no desire other than that they shall be placed before the community in their true light.

Now, sir, the appearance before a court in that city of a person of this description, claiming the enjoymnent of all the rights pertaining to a while man, would be a most novel exhibition, to say the least. Many of us in South Carolina have freed these persons-I myself have done so, as the rep resentative of an estate-and have sent them to the North. I know also of many free colored persons who have left Charleston and gone there, among them the Joneses, as respectable persons of that class as there are at the North. Many of them have petitioned the Legislature to allow them, under a special law, to return, but permission has been refused them. And yet, under the proposition presented here, Massachusetts has only to take these people and make citizens of them, and they may return to South Carolina. in violation of that law. What can he said of such a proposition as that? I have said, on another occasion, that the old acts of Congress are very particular in referring to the sailors engaged in the foreign commerce of the country, to designate them as citizens, and as native free persons of color, thus expressly making a distinction between citizens and free persons of color. These are the acts of Congress passed-I will not say in the better days of their history-but certainly when a more cordial understanding ex isted between Massachusetts and South Carolina. The act of 1790, in re gard to seamen,‘for instance, if examined, will be found to contain a clause saying expressly that citizens only, or native free persons of color, shall be sailors-thus distinguishing between them, and clearly showing that it was never contemplated that free persons of color should ever be regarded as cit

Page 8 view page image

8 izens of the United States. I do not say that a person of this character, so long as he confines himself to the State that chooses to confer onl him these privileges, may not enjoy the complete rights and immunities of a citizen there, but I do deny the proposition that it is in the power of any one State to confer upon thenm the right to enjoy those privileges in any State where the laws forbid it, or where a status of that description is unknown. But this is perhaps foreign to the question as presented here, which is to provide means to try this question before the courts. Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts. That is the point. Mr. BUTLER. I will not go into that matter, for I do not consider it germane to this bill. And if the amendment is adopted, I do not say that such is the desire of the mover, but the result will be to defeat this bill. But I am not prepared at this moment to do justice to myself, or to an argumnient as to the proper construction of an article of the constitution of so grave a consequence as the one involved here. It requires more titie and attention than it is in my power to bestow upon it, with mly notice thus unexpectedly called to it, and I have made these hasty suggestions with a view of indicating, rather than of fully presenting, the serious objections which exist to the adoption of the amendment But, clearly, South Carolina should not be especially,ingled out in this mannier; for Louisiana, and perhaps Georgia, have similar laws; and Illinois, and I do not know but others of the Northwestern States, have clauses in their constitutions that repudiate the idea that a freeman of color in Massachusetts, although a citizen there, can be a citizen in another State. You are opening the discussion of a very delicate question of jurisdiction by this amnendment; and it is one which, however’it may lead to irritation elsewhere, 1 shall seek to discuss with perfect calmness and deliberation. I do not, however, think it belongs to this law, and if adopted, I am confident it is an amendment which will break it down. After remarks by Messrs. Berrien, Chase, Davis of Mississippi, and Foote Mr.

WINTHIROP. I very cheerfully acquiesce in the suggestion which has been made on all sides of the Senate, that this question should be taken to-day. Biit, inasmuch as several Senators have already spoken upon the subject, I feel bound, by my relations to a State which has been particularly aggrieved by these Southern laws, not to remain entirely silent. And I am the more impelled to say a few words before the vote is taken, by what has just fallen from the Senator from Mississippi, (MR.

DAVIS). the has taken occasion to remark that if the people of Massachusetts are excited upon this subject, it is only because they do not understand the nature of it. Now, sir, this is no new question. It is no new question to Massachusetts. It is no new question to the country and to Congress. I was not at all surprised to hear the Senator from Georgia argue the case with so much readiness and ability as he has done. I believe that distinguished Senator, as Attorney Gentieral of the United States, gave an official opinion many years ago that the law of South Carolina was entirely constitutional. Mr. BERRIEN. It was not this question. Mr. WINTHROP. I understand that the law was the same, though the, facts may have been different; and I understand that the official opinion of the Senator covered the whole question of the constitutionality of the law. Why, Mr. President, in the year 1842 or 1843, [ happened to be upon a committee in the House of Representatives to whom this question was re ferred, and I made a report on the subject, taking the ground of the i)jus tice and unconstitutionality of these Southern statutes. An honorable friend from North Carolina, who is no longer a member of the House, but whom I I I N

Page 9 view page image

9 have had the pleasure of meeting here this very day, (Mr. RAYNER,) sub mitted a minority report in opposition to nmire. It was he who first brought to my notice the opinion of the honorable Senator from Georgia. He appended it at full length to his report. He cited it triumphantly in favor of his views. Indeed, I may say that he rested his argument in favor of the constitutionality of these laws almost entirely upon that opi,ion.

I call only say that if he was mistaken, it was the mistake of one friendly to that side of the case, and of one who had given the most careful and diligent examination to the u hole subject. I alluded to this point, however, only for the purpose of say ing that the question had not only been decided by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, but that it had received a precisely opposite decision from sources entitled to equal consideration and respect. It was brought up be fore the circuit court of the United States in the city of Charleston itself, and the honorable William Johnson, a native citizen of South Carolina, and one of the most eminent men who have adorn)ed our Supreme bench, gave an elaborate opinion that this was an unconstitutional law. This was inll the year 1823. More than that: Mr. John Quincy Adams having been called upon, when Secretary of State, by the British Government, with regard to the operation of this law upon a British subject, consulted Mr. William Wirt, then Attorney General of the United States; and he, too, though a citizen of the slaveholding State of Maryland, gave an opinion, in the full est and(
most unqualified terms, that the law was against the constitution, treaties, and laws of the Union. It seems, therefore, that the State of Massachusetts is not so entirely un informed with regard to the ground of the argument as to these police regu lations of the Southern States, and that she is not without good and suffi cient cause for demanding that the final decision of this matter may be submitted to some other and less interested tribunals, than the Legislatures of the States which choose to enact such statutes. Sir, it is no mere ques tion of citizenship which is involved in this controversy. Even if it were, however, I am by no means sure that we might not cite the authority of more than one of the Southern States in favor of our position. My honorable friend from North Carolina (Mr. BADGER) will bear witness, if I mistake not, that it is only within twelve or fifteen years that the constitution of his own State has been changed, under which free colored persons were entitled to vote side by side with their white brethren. Mr. BADGER. The constitution of North Carolina, as originally framed, did not permit the elective franchise to citizens by that namre. It was given to all freemen, who had lived within the State a certain length of time, and who had paid taxes. Mr. WINTHROP.

At any rate, these free colored persons voted for their own rulers, and took part in that great business of self government which is the distinctive feature of our republican system. Why, sir, unless I am greatly mistaken, it was the honorable Lewis Williams-one of the most excellent men who ever represented North Carolina, or any other State, in the other House-who lived to be the father of the House, and died utli versally respected and lamented-it was he, I think, who told me, that vwhen he first entered Congress he came by the votes of free colored persons. They gave the casting vote in his district, and gaze it in his favor. So it was in Tennessee not many years since. The honorable Senator from that State, immediately behind me, (Mr. BELL,) has known the day when there were three or four hundred colored voters in his own district. The consti tution of Tennessee has since been altered, and I believe it has deprived this class of persons of any participation in the elective franchise. But I repeat, Mr. President, it is no mere question of citizenship which we desire to have settled. The question is, whether, upon the ground of .!~ I. 1 -

Page 10 view page image

10 police regulations, or upon any other ground, the States of South Carolina, Alabtama, Louisiana, and Florida shall have the right to take the stewards and niariners out of our vessels, and imprison them, and even sell them into slavery for life, for no other crime than their color. It matters little to this issue whether they are citizens or not. They are persons ” held to service or labor,” if you please to call them so. They have entered into articles of agreement, with the master of the vessel on board of which they are shipped, to perform service and labor of a certain sort, during the voyage. Under these Southe-n laws, they are taken out of the vessel in which they are thus articled and employed, carried on shore and incarcerated; and unless the master shall afterwards reclaim them, at a heavy expense, they are liable to be sold and held as absolute slaves.

This is, the language of the statute. And all that we now ask is, that the constitutionality of such a statute should be solemnly adjudicated by some competent and disinterested tribunal. Can any one say that such a demand is unreasonable? With regard to the mission of Mr. Hoar, it ought to be remembered that, before he was sent to South Carolina, the Governor of Massachusetts had made application to more than one of the most distinguished lawyers of that State to bring this subject before the courLs. He attempted to avail himself of the professional services of any member of the Chareston bar who might be willing to test the constitutionality of that law. It was only after these attempts had failed that this Massachusetts emissary, as he has been somewhat reproachfully called, was appointed to the service. I cannot but think that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. BUTLER) should remnember this fact, in justification of Massachusetts, if indeed she needs any justification, for the appointment of Mr. Hoar. Mr. President, the question which Massachusetts desires to have decided is simply whether we have the right to employ, as stewards and mariners, on board of our own vessels, such persons as we find it expedient or necessary to employ, and to enter freely with them at the Southern ports of this Union. Why, sir, in many of the Northern ports it is almost impossible to find any other than colored persons for these particular berths of cooks and stewards. Southern Senators know well how peculiarly adapted they are for such services. Our shipmasters are often compelled to take one or two of them in these capacities. Well, sir, the vessels are bound to Liverpool, perhaps. They stop at Charleston or some other Southern port for a cargo of cotton.

Instantly on arriving at the wharf they are boarded and searched, and these colored hands, while ever so innocently emnployed in cooking a meal or keeping a watch, are seized, carried on shore, and imprisoned; and all this for fear they may incite somebody to insurrection, or communicate what is called a moral contagion to the blacks on shore. Sir, it is proverbial that these violent courses generally defeat their own ends. And I remember to have heard or read an anecdote illustrative of the effect which is sometimes the result of this most arbitrary and unjustifiable practice. One of these free colored persons is said to have been seized and carried on shore and shut up-while the vessel to which he belonged remained in port-in the very same cell in which a number of free blacks, or of runaway slaves, perhaps, were confined. He had thus the very best of all opportunities for preaching the doctrines of abolition to his companions, and for effecting the very object which, if he had been allowed to remain at his work, utinder the hatches of his own vessel, at the caboose or in the cabin, he could never have accomplished. I will only add, in conclusion, that such acts are, in my judgment, a wholly unnecessary exercise of power, and one entirely unwarranted by any thing which can be found in the Constitution of the United States. I l - i, . 1

5:.: i, ,, - I ir ,: i r ll:

Page 11 view page image

11 After further remarks by Messrs. Butler, Winthrop, Berrien, Atchison and Foote Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. When I spoke of that ignorance to which the Senator from Massachusetts has referred, I did not speak of the ignorance of constitutional law on the part of the Senator from Massachusetts or the people of Massachusetts; but when the Senator chose to put that construction upon my remark, I allowed him to proceed. I might have answered him, when he was referring to the history of his action in 1843, as the Vicar of Wakefield said to the men who sold Moses the green spectacles: “I ask pardon, sir, for interrupting so much learning; but I think I have heard all this before.” ‘Now, I still hold, as I did before, that such excitement can only be produced by ignorance of the facts in the case, can only be generated by those who mnanufac(ture such anecdotes as that which the Senator related, and by announcing to the people of Massachusetts that mariners are taken from vessels to be incarcerated on shore. I would ask any gentleman here or elsewhere to point to a case where, at any Southern port, the steward of a vessel has been seized from the vessel, and carried on shore? But does not every gentleman perceive, at the same time, that unless the process can be executed on board the vessel, such steward will go ashore an(l commit the outrages, which this law was created to prevent, and then fly to the deck of his vessel for protection, and claim immunity? It must be competent to arrest him there: But if he stays on board, where and when was ever a search instituted to ascertain whether he was there or not?’ It is well known that the stewards of our armed vessels of the navy of the United States are generally’black.

They go into every port in the United States, and who ever interfered with them q. So, sir, the vesseis which are constantly enitering into the port of New Orleans have the same class of stewards. If they remain on board they are not interfered with. If they go ashore they are likely to do mischief; they have done it, have been the means of getting slaves on board the vessel, and having them shipped to ports where their aholition masters can protect them. For this reason, it has been necessary to exclude them by law. Ignorance with respect to the practical operation of the law in the Southern States, may be well expected even in the most learned in Massachusetts, especially when they are led to that ignorance by those who seek to cater to it in order to promote their own designs of mischief. Had the truth been told by every man, the unhappy excitement which has arrayed section against section could never have existed. It has been falsehood, as well with regard to our own domestic affairs as with regard to those points of difference between the institutions of the different States, which has produced the excitement. And this is why I should deem it a blessing to have the fraud exposed, and why t desire the Senator from Georgia should have an opportunity to proceed. It was because I knew of the very able opinion he had given, and how it had been assailed, that I wished to hear hin); because I believe that the people of Massachusetts might listen to him and learn how they have been deceived.

However wise they may be in constilutional law, they may be ignorant of the facts that exist, and their ignorance may be practised upon by those who abuse it. Mr. BALDWIN. I wish to say a few words, and do not intend to occupy much of the time of the Senate, but this is a question in which not only Massachusetts, but other States concerned in navigation feel an interest. [ regard the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts as a proper amendment to be attached to this particular bill. The law of the State of South Carolina authorizes the arrest or seizure of any free negroes or colored persons coming into any of the ports of that State, as cooks, stewards, or mariners, and their confinement in prison until the vessel is

Page 12 view page image

12 ready to depart, when it requires the captain, under a severe penalty, to carry them away and pay the expenses of their detention; and in case of his neglect or refusal so to do, it enacts ” that such FREE negroes or persons of color shall be DEEMED and taken to be ABSOLUTE SLAVES, and sold.” By the laws of the State of South Carolina, then, a free man of a Northern State, guilty of no crime except his color, becomes an absolute slave to the person who purchases him. Under this law he is sold as a slave - not because his presence in South Carolina has endangered the peace and security of the people of that State, but because his captain has neglected to carry him away when the vessel departed, and because the negro is himself unable to obtain his discharge from imprisonment or to pay the expenses of his detention. Now, sir, this bill provides for the return of any fugitives who owe service, by the laws of the State from which they fled. By the laws of the State of South Carolina these men would be holden as slaves, and by the provisions of this bill, upon that fact being ascertained by the commissioner in any free State, to which any such fugitive may have escaped, he shall be delivered up to the claimantt, to be remanded to the State from which he fled, there to have his title to freedom or the right of the purchaser to hold him in slavery decided by the laws of South Carolina, under whose authority he was sold. Now this amendment is intended to provide a mode of testing the validity of that law, under which a free citizen is liable to be sold as a slave, by authorizing an application to be made by the district attorney to the court of the United States ftr the discharge of seamen thus imprisoned, if, in the opinion of the court, the law by which they are detained is unconslitutional and void. This is not a mere imaginary danger. The fact of such sale has actually occurred. Mr. BUTLER. Wfhat, and one been sold?

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, sir, a free colored seaman sailing from the State of Connecticut. He arrived at a port in South Carolina, and while there he was seized and imprisoned, and sold as a slave. HIe was taken as a slave to New Orleans, and held there under the sale made in pursuance of this law of South Carolina. I was applied to, more than twenty years ago, by a gentleman in New Orleans, who has since occupied a distinguished position uLnder this Government, for the purpose of taking testimony at New Haven to support his claim to freedom, he having made several voyages from that port. I said I was applied to; a commission was sent to another gentleman, now resident in Philadelphia, and my name was inserted with his in the couimission. Mr. BUTLER. Was he discharged? Mr. BALDWIN. I believe he was discharged; but he was sold utinder the law of South Carolina. If the question had been made under that law, and in the State of South Carolina, whether that seaman was legally held in slavery pursuant to that sale, the judges of that State would in all probability have decided in accordance with the provisions of that law. If he had escaped from the person who bought him in South Carolina and come to a free State, he must, under the provisions of this bill, have been remanded to South Carolina, in order to have the question as to his title to freedom, or the right of the purchaser to hold him in slavery, determined by the law of that State. Who can doubt that, under that law, a South Carolina judge would have felt himself bound to regard him as a slave? Mr. BUTLER. I do not intend to answer what has been said in regard to this case. I think it is nothing new, and I think when it comes to be examined it will be found to be a very different one from what it is represented. After a few words from Mr.

Dickinson, the question was taken on the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. DAVIS,) and it was rejected, as follows:

Page 13 view page image

13 YEAS.-XMessrs. BALDWIN, CLARKE, COOPER, DAVIS, of Massaiehi,stts.

DAYTON, Dodge, of Wisconsin, GREErNE, SMITH, Spruance, UPIHAM, Wales, Walker, WINTHROP -13. NAYS.-Messrs. Atebison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Davis, of Mississippi, Dawson, Dodge, of Iowa, Downs, Foote, Hulnter, Jones, King, Manguini, Mason, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soul6, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Yulee-24. The question then recurred on ordering the Fugitive Slave bill to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. BALDWIN called for the yeas and nays, and, being taken, they were as follows: YEas.-Mess,s Atchison, Bad,,er, Barrwell, Bell, Berriea, Butler, Davis, of Mississippi, Dawson, Doige, of Iowa, Dow,s, F,,ote, Houston,l Huiter, Jones. Kitg, Mangum, Ma-on, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, SonI!6, Spruance, Stureon, Turniiey, Uni(lerwood, Wales, Ytilee-27. NAYS.-Messrs.

BALDWIN, Bradbury, Chase, CoopzR, DAVIs, of Massachusetts, DAYTON, Dodge, of Wisconsin, GREENE, SMI’rH, UPHAM, Walker, WINTHIROP-12. THURSDAY, SEPT.

10, 1850. Slave-Triade in the District of Colutmbia. The bill for abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia being under consideration, Mr. SEWARD proposed the following as a substitute for the whole bill: SECTION 1. Slavery shall forever cease within the District of Columbia, and all persons held in bondage therein shall be free. The Secretary of the Interior shall audit and pay to all persons holding slaves within the District at the time that this act takes erect, such damages as they shall suffer by the passage thereof, and the sum of two hundred thousand dollars is hereby appropriated to carry this act into execution, out of any money in the’T’reasury not otherwise appropriated.

SEC. 2. An election shall be held in the District of Columbia to ascertain whether this bill is approved by the people thereof. Those who approve the act shall express their approbation by a ballot containing the words, “For emancipation in the District.” Those who are opposed shall vote by ballot, containing the words, “Against emancipation in the District.” All persons entitled to vote for any municipal officer in the District, and all citizens of the United States residing with in the District permanently, shall be deemed qualified to vote at such election. Such election shall be held within six months from the passage of this act, and on: public notice of not less than three months, to be given by the Marshal of the Dis trict. If a majority of the votes given at such election shall be in favor of this act, it shall go into effect imnmediately. If a majority of the votes shall be against the same, this act shall be void and of none efbfect. Mr. PRATT demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. Mr.

BALDWIN. The Senate will recollect that a few days since I introduced to their notice certain resolutions passed by the Legislature of Connecticut, one of which was in favor of the immediate prohibition of the slave, trade in the District of Columrbia, and of the abolition of slavery upon such terms of compensation to the slaveholders, as may be just and reasonable.

In that respect, therefore, it accords with the motion which is now made by the Senator from New York, but I am not prepared to vote for itis pi’oposi  tion as an amendment to the bill befoire the Senate. I have hoped, and still hope, that the bill reported by the committee for the abolition of the slave trade in the District may be adopted by Congress; and I should be very unwilling to do-any thing which would have a tendency to prevent the favorable action of the two houses of Congress upon the bill as it was originally reported. It is true that the Senate have already adopted, in Conimittee’of the Whole, amendminents to this bill of a character which will prevent me, if those amendments shall be finally retained, from giving to the bill my vote; but if it should pass the Senate in its present fi)rm, I am not without hope 2

Page 14 view page image

that the objectionable amendments will be stricken out by the Houirse, artnd the bill be returned to us, and concurred in by the Senate, in the form i’r which it was originally presented. I think there is reason to believe that such may be the result; and if so, certainly one very great object will be attained; an object, in the immediate attainment of which the legislature of the State of Connecticut have manifested a deep and special interest. Now, in my view, any action which the Senate may have upon the amend ment which is offered by the Senator from New York, and the amendments to it which will very probably be proposed by others, will tend to embarrass and prevent the favorable action of Congress upon the proposition now before us for the immediate abolition of the slave trade in the District, and I prefer myself that the two houses shall act finally upon this bill as a separate measure, before we enter upon the consideration of any other proposition, which, however desirable, there is less reason to believe, will be immediately successful. Such a course will, in my opinion, better comport with the resolutions of the Legislature of my own State, to w’hich I have referred. After further debate by Messrs. Mangum, Dawson, Dayton, Pratt, Atchi son, Mason, Chase, Butler and Foote, in the course of which, the latter Senator said that he “recognised this practically as a proposition to( diss)lve the Union - Mr.

WINTHROP. Mr. President, if I shall vote against the amendment which has now been proposed by the honorable Senator from New York, (Mr. SEWARD,) it will not be because I regard it as a proposition to dia,solve this Union.

I do not know what might be the effect of that amendment, if it were adopted. But it really seems to me that the idea that the liberation of two,thousand, or at most twenty.five hundred slaves Mr. BALDWIN. Not twenty-five hundred. There are only six hundred slaves here. Mr. WINTHROP.

I think the Senator must be mistaken;* blit if it be so, then I say, with all the more emphasis, that the idea that the liberation of six hundred slaves, on a little piece of territory now reduced to about six miles square, is about to dissolve this Union, altogether surpasses my lbelief.

I am not quite credulous enough for that. Mr. FOOTE. Will the honorable Senator bear with me to allow me to explain on one point. Mr. WINTHROP.

Certainly. Mr. FOOTE. Mr. President, it is not the number of the slaves; it is not the immediate consequences; it is the hideous violation of the political coilnpact of our fathers. It is the principle-the most unpardonable iilj,istice towards the Souith-which must inflamte the public mind, and must inevitably awaken apprehension that this is but the entering wedge to other and more aggressive measures, which are afterwards to follow. That is my view of the matter. Mr. WINTHROP. I believe I understood the honorable memlbner from Mississippi before. The facts of the case were certainly as I stated them. His suggestion was, that the passage of a bill to emancipate six or seven hundred negroes on this little patch of territory, which you may almost cover with your pocket-handkerchief, was about to be the entering wedge which was to rive this vast Union asunder. Sir, it must indeed be the operation of some awful and mysterious principle, and not the operation of the act itself, which is about to produce this tremendous result. And that leads me to say, in the second place, that if I should vote against this amendment, it will not be on the ground that I do not believe Congress * It has since been ascertained that the number of Slaves in the District of ColuTibia is about 3,000). 14 N

Page 15 view page image

have the power to abolish slavery in this District, nor upon the ground that I ai,i not willing to exercise that power on the proper occasion and in a proper manner. That I understand to be the principle which is about to dissolve the Union. The assertion and exercise of this power is so hideous a violation of the political compact, and so unpardonable an injustice towards the South, that the dissolution of the Union is inevitable! Sir, I hold to no such doctrine; and I desire, if by chance my name should be recorded against this amendment, to protest in advance against being understood to acquiesce in any such idea. No one can go further than myself in denying the power of Congress to interfere with slavery in the States; but within the limits of this District, I maintain that its authority is complete, over slavery and over every thing else.

And I happen to have before me some little memoranda of the opinions of our fathers and of our predecessors upon this subject, which will serve, I think, to justify this opinion, better than any argument of my own. I brought them into the Senate some days ago, with no expectation of being called upon to use them in this connection, if at all; and certainly with not the slightest idea that the Senator from New York was about to do, let me say, so unadvised and so unseasonable a thing as to offer such an amendment to the bill now before us. Sir, in the Virginia Convention which ratified the Federal constitution, what said George Mason, the father of the constitution of his own State, I believe? In referring to the clause giving Congress the power to exercise exclusive legislation over the District of Columnbia, he said “This clause gives an unlimited authority in every possible case within the District. He would willingly give them exclusive power as far as respected the police and good government of the place, but he would give them no more” What said Patrick Henry? He spoke of it as ” an unlimited and unbounded authority.” What said Mr. Madison, in the ” Federalist? ” “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of Government carries its own evidence with it.’ Here are the opinions of three of the fathers of the Republic; of three of the most celebrated names in the old Commonwealth of Virginia. Well, what was proposed not long afterwards in the Congress of the United States? Here is a record from the journal of the Hlouse of Repre sentatives of January 18, ISO5, proving the opinions that were held by a large number of the Representatives of the people at that time. The reso lution then presented was not adopted, but we shall see presently how large a vote it received, and on what grounds it was rejected. ” On motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following resolution: ”’ Resolved, That from and after the 4th day of July, 1805, all blacks and people of color that shall be born within the District of Columbia, or whose mothers shall be the property of any person residing within said District, shall be free, the males at the age of -, and the femnales at the age of -.’ ” The House proceeded to consider the said motion at the Clerk’s table, and, on the question that the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, it passed in the negative: Yeas 47, nays 65. And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to said motion, as originally proposed, it passed in the negative: Yeas 31, nays 77.” The motion was thus lost by a majority of 46; but nothingc was heard on that occasion about its being a proposition to dissolve the Union, or even an entering-wedge directed to that end. It was opposed on grounds of expediency only, and the power of Congress was not denied. 15

Page 16 view page image

16 This, Mr. President, shows the sentiments of the Representatives of the people at that early period of the republic. It shows, too,,that the proposition of the Senator from New York is not altogether novel; and indeed I have evidence here that such a proposition has been offered under better auspices, and with better success, at a later day. On the 9th of January, 1829, the House of Representatives of the United States actually passed the followingo resolutions “Resolved, That the Committee for the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providinrg by law for the gradual abolition of slavery within the District, in such manner that the interests of no individual shall be injured thereby.” I That resolution passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 114 to 66, some ten or twelve members from the slave States voting in favor of the resolution. And front first to last it will be found in the debates upon these questions, that the power of Congress over this question-the power to abolish slavery and the slave trade in this District-the power-to do this very thing which the honorable Senator from Mississippi tells us involves a principle which is about to rend the Union asunder, has been admitted again and again by gentlemen from almost every Southern State, as well as from almiost every Northern State in this Union. Why, sir, as long ago as the debate on the Missouri question, in 1820, Mr. Smyth, of Virginia, reproached the free States with their inaction on this subject. “If (said he) the future freedom of the blacks is your real object, and not a mere pretence, why do you not begin here?

Within the ten miles square you have undoubted power to exercise exclusive legislation. Produce a bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of Columbia, or, if you prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter.” More recently, Mr. Powell, of Virginia, in his report of January 11, 1837, says: “The Congress of the United States has, by the constitution, exclusive jurisdiction over the District, and has power upon this subject (slavery) as upon all other subjects of legislation, to exercise inlimited discretion.” And Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, in the resolutions which he introduced in the House of Representatives in 1836, while he says “
that Congress has no power to interfere with the institution of slavery in any State,” only says that it ought not to interfere with slavery in the District of Columbia. I may add that there have been petitions again and again presented here from North Carolina and other slave States, in favor of the abolition of slavery in this District. I have eeien before me a record of December 13, 1824, where Mr. Saunders of North Carolina (late minister to Spain, I believe,) presented a mieniorial of citizens of that State, praying that measures may be taken for the gradual abolition of slavery in the United States. Still again, sir, the Legislature of Virginia, as my record informs me, in February, 1836, proposed unanimously an amendment to-the Constitution of the United States, to take away fromn Congress the power to emancipate slaves in the District of Columbia. The amendment proposed was as follows: ”’ The powers of Congress shall not be so construed as to authorize the passage of any law for the emancipation of slaves in the District of Columnbia, without the consent of the individual proprietors thereof, unless by the sanction of the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, and under such conditions as they shall by law prescribe.” It was thus formally proposed by Virginia, that, with the consent of the States of Virginia and Maryland, or with the consent of the proprietors of slaves in this District, the very act might be performed, the mere proposition

Page 17 view page image

17 tit which the honorable Senator from Mississippi thinks now is an enteting wedge to dissolve this Union. And it was thus virtually admitted that it might be done without any such consent. Sir, for myself, therefore, I say, with such a weight of authority before us, that if I vote against this amendment, it will not be either because I re gard it as a proposition to dissolve the Union, or because 1 hold that Congress have not full authority and power to do the very thing which it is now pro posed to do. But I will add at the same time that I do most sincerely regret that the honorable Senator from New York should have seen fit to spring upon us such a proposition without previous notice, and in this immediate connection. I most deeply regret that he should have thought proper to em barrass the action of the Senate, and embarrass the action of individuals upon a question so interesting to us all as that under consideration, by a proposition of so crude and hasty a character. What is the proposition? It begins by a proclamation of immediate emancipation to every slave in the District of Columbia. But what follows? I had almost said that it holds out a false promise on its face. It says slavery shall instantly cease in the District of Columbia! But does it cease even under the terms of the amendment? No, sir, not at all. The question is to be put to a popular vote in the District. We are to have, under this amend.

menrit, a grand election in this District six months hence, to decide in favor of emancipation or against emancipation. Notice is to be given in the mean time to all the slaves in the District that their freedom or servitude depends on the result of this election. If a majority of the votes cast shall be against emancipation, slavery is to be prolonged and perpetuated. In that event, too, the slave trade, the suppression of which is proposed by this bill, will remain as it now is; for the honorable Senator has moved his proposition as a substitute for the whole bill. He has not proposed to leave any part of this bill, to accomplish the great object of putting an end to the odious and abhorrent traffic which has so long brought reproach upon the American capital, in case his own scheme should be voted down by the people. But, sir, is there not something more in this proposition, which is contrary to all the views which have ever been entertained in regard to such a measure, if it should at any time be passed and carried through? This amendmnent provides for the immediate emancipation of all the slaves in this District. Fathers, mothers, children of tender age, the infirm, the helpless, the destitute, are all to be instantly thrown upon their own resources, on the declara. tion of a vote to that effect by the people of the District. And has the honorable Senator made the slightest provision for their condition after they are emancipated? What is to become of them? They are to be taken away from their masters. The masters are to some extent to be paid for them.

Provision is to be made by the Secretary of the Interior for compensating the proprietors for any damages which may result to them from taking away their slaves, to the aggregate amount of two hundred thousand dollars. But what is to become of these poor people themselves? Emancipated instantly, without any apprentice system like that adopted by the British Parliament when slavery was abolished in the West Indies, without any transition state between slavery and freedom, without any appropriation or provision of any sort for their support or relief, what is to be their immediate condition? Is there not great dancer, too, Mr. President, that, owing to the inadequate sum which is proposed for the compensation of the masters, and the utter absence of any provision by which the damages may be ascertained, the great mass of these slaves, should this proposition be adopted, would be sold off for Southern markets before the day of emancipation would arrive, and that this great measure of humanity would thus result in nothing but increased wretchedness and prolonged captivity to all concerned? 2*

Page 18 view page image

18 Sir, I cannot but regard this as a very crude and hasty proposition, in the first place. And I cannot but regard it, in the next place, as a most unseasonable and untimely proposition. I deeply regret that it has been brought forward in connection with this bill-under the present circunmstances of the country-at a moment when the public mind is so greatly agitated on questions of this sort, and at a moment, moreover, when we are endeavoring to accomplish another object, which is perhaps within our reach, and which has been so earnestly desired by all who have the interests of humanity at heart. When the abolition of these accursed depots for carrying on the slave trade in the District of Columbia seems just within our grasp, I must repeat, sir, that I do most deeply deplore that the honorable Senator from New York should embarrass and perhaps defeat our action, by a proposition so indiscreet, so ill digested, and so impracticable every way as that which he has offered. After remarks by Mr.

Badger, the Senate adjourned. FRIDAY, SEPT. 11, 1850. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill to suppress the slave trade in the District of Columbia. The ques tion pending was on the amendment of Mr. SEWARD, being a substitute for the bill. Mr. HAMLIN.

Mr. President, as I propose to vote against the amend ment offered by the Senator from New York, I desire to state, in a very few words, the reasons which will control my vote. I am in favor of the original bill as it was reported to the Senate by the Committee of Thirteen. Mr. SEWARD. Will the Senator from Maine allow me one word of explanation? Mr. HAMLIN.

Certainly. Mr. SEWARD. Mr. President, I am in favor of the original bill, as it was reported by the Committee of Thirteen; and it was not until I discovered that there was no possibility of passing the bill in that shape, or in a shape in which I could give it my vote, that I concluded to offer the substitute which is before the Senate. I have, however, now been given to understand that the bill, as reported by the Committee of Thirteen, may be passed so that I can give my vote for it, and so that it will be satisfactory to the Senator from Maine. With that view, with the unanimous consent of the Senate, I will withdraw my amendment for the present; and if the bill can be passed in the shape reported by the Committee of Thirteen, I shall not renew the amendment. But if it cannot pass in that shape, I shall renew the amendment after the bill shall have been reported to the Senate. It required the unanimous consent of the Senate to give leave to withdraw the amendment, as the yeas and nays had been ordered on it. Mr. DAWSON. As the proposition is to withdraw the amendment merely for the present, I object to the withdrawal. So the amendment was not withdrawn. After further debate by Mr. Hamlin, Mr. Clay, Mr. Badger, and Mr. Seward, Mr. WINTHROP. I perceive, Mr. President, that my use of the word indiscreet” yesterday, in relation to the amendment proposed by the Senator from New York, (Mr. SEWARD,) has rankled a little in his bosom. Sir, I would willingly retract that word. I would willingly acknowledge that whatever the Senator does is “wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best.” But my difficulty in doing so at this moment is in the fact that the honorable Senator himself has formally admitted the charge.

He has first pleaded guilty, and then has gone into an argument to prove his innocence. The honorable Senator

Page 19 view page image

19 rose this morning and asked leave of the Senate to do what? Why, sir, to withdraw his amendment, because it was out of time, because it was unseasonable, because he desired to do that to-day which I desired to do yesterday, to give an opportunity for passing the main body of this bill-the two original sections of the bill-before he insisted on pressing an amendment which he knew must embarrass, if not defeat its passage.

Well, sir, I re. gretted exceedingly that the Senator was not allowed to withdraw his amends ment on that occasion. He had admitted all that I had averred with regard to it, and had asked leave to withdraw it; but the yeas and nays having been ordered, and one or two objections being made, the Senator was compelled to leave it where it was. And now, forsooth, no sooner is this settled, than he proceeds to argue that it was entirely in season, entirely suitable, that there was no objection to it at this time or at any other time, and that in using the word “indiscreet” yesterday, I quite overstepped the proprieties of the occasion. Nay, more, sir; the honorable Senator, somewhat stung apparently by my application of this phrase-which I certainly regret if it gave him offence-proceeds to argue, by way of retaliation, that I am in favor of this bill as it stands on your table in quasi committee. He charges that I was opposed to his bill being substituted for the original bill, with a view of saving the bill as it now stands in committee, not yet reported to the Senate. Now, sir, I might well charge the honorable Senator with a want of generosity, with a want of candor, with a want of justice, towards me on this point. That Senator knows perfectly well that my vote is already recorded against both the amendments of the Senator from Maryland, (Mr. PeaRcE.) That Senator knows perfectly well that throughout my whole course in Congress, in either wing of the Capitol, I have been uniformly opposed to all provisions of law like that contained in the last and most obnoxious of these amendments. That Senator knows perfectly well that it is the original bill, as reported by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, which I intend to support, and which I desired to save, by opposing the unseasonable and injudicious amendment which he has thought proper to propose. Sir, I shall nriot yield to the Senator himself in the earnestness of my opposition to the amendments which have been adopted in committee on motion of the Senator from Maryland; and I have been anxiously waiting an opportunity-the only opportunity which can be fairly afforded-when those amendments shall be reported to the Senate, to make that opposition again manifest. As, however, a comparison of the whole bill with the substitute which has been offered by the Senator fromn New.York is now the legitimate subject of consideration, I suppose I may be allowed to say a word or two on those amendments. Certainly, sir, I am opposed to the bill as it now stands upon your table, if those amendments are to be persisted in. I regard the amendment which authorizes the corporations of Georgetown and Washington and the levy court of Washington county to proscribe, exile, and drive out of their respective jurisdictions a certain class of freemen-for they are called freemen in the bill itself-as utterly unconstitutional, and as utterly unjustifiable.

Why, sir, these amendments are of a nature to change the whole character of the measure; and this bill, in the form in which it stands on your table at this moment, is liable to be made the instrument of a policy as odious and oppressive as the very traffic which it originally proposed to suppress. Instead of being a bill to abolish the-traffic in slaves, it seems rather about to be made a bill to create a traffic in freemen, for you allow the two city governmen~ts to do what? To remove, to exile, to drive out from their respective jurisdictions any free colored persons whom they shall not think fit to have among them; and in case any such persons should not exactly comply with certain laws or regulations which may be prescribed on the subject of their residence or removal, you authorize these authorities to imprison

Page 20 view page image

20 them at labor without limit. And all this on the mere ground of their color all this on account of their complexions. Why, the very jail, the very depot which has been rendered so odious by this domestic traffic in slaves, which the Senator from Kentucky desires to suppress, may be used for imprisoning these free negroes, and turning them into virtual slaves by making them work for the public service against their will, and for no latult but that of their skins. I therefore cordially unite with the Senator from New York in his opposition to that part of the bill, and shall gladly co6perate with him in striking it out. But his amendment goes further. It proposes to strike out the whole bill. It proposes to strike out the two original sections, l)y which, and by which alone, the slave-trade can be abolished. I repeat again, that the Senator in this case risks the substance for the purpose of signralizilng himself in a vain attempt to grasp the shadow. He knows that at the present session of Congress no bill like that which he proposes can possibly be passed through the two [louses. But, sir, even if it should be passed, what would be the result? Why, if the people of this District-as in my judgment, I am sorry to say, I think they would-should vote that slavery should not be abolished in this District at six month’s notice, and upon the precise terms which the Senator proposes, then what becomes of the bill for suppressing the slave trade? The Senator perils upon the vote of the people of this District the whole question at issue. If the people shall declare against emancipation, then we are neither to have slavery abolished, nor the slave-trade suppressed. Sir, 1 for one, cannot consent to such a policy.‘lihe Senator may feel justified in declaring that slavery shall not be abolished here, unless the people of the District sly so. But I can go with him in no course, which leaves the sup pression it’

the slave-trade in any degree contingent upon a popular vote. Mr.

President, I would gladly do every thing in my power to promote the interests and true welfare of the District of Columrbia. I desire to vote for the two original sections reported by the Senator from Kentucky. I desire to save those sections, if possible, by voting against all other matters which mav interfere with and embarrass their passage. But I cannot violate a great principle. I cannot establish what I hold to be an unconstitutional discrimination between different classes of Anmericarn freemen, in order to subserve a mere local convenience. As to the difficulty which has been suggested with retard to the influx of free negroes into this District, why you have the same means of dealing with them as you have with all other persons who come here. If they are vicious, disorderly, and riotous, as they have been represented to be, you have all the moral and legal remedies at your command against vice, disorder and riotousness. If they are vagrants you can restrain them. If they are paupers you can put them to labor. If they are guilty of breaches of the peace, or of crime of any kind, you can arrest them on proper evidence, and imprison them on due conviction in your jails and penitentiaries. You have your wvork-iholses for them by day, and your watchhouses for them by night. And you have, or ought to have, the better security of-schools and churches for their reformation and improvement.

Whatever you can do for others, you can do for them. Anid, sir, I should like to ask what clause there is in the constitution, and what althoritv there is to be found any where, for making distinct,ions between one class of freemen and another class of freemen in this country? It has been repeatedly asked here, where we get authority for discriminating between different classes of property between slave property and other property. I should like to know where we get authority for discriminations between different classes of persons-between different classes of acknowledged freemen? Sphere is the provision in the constitution of the United States?

Upon what principle does such a discrimination rest? How is the assumption to be justified, that a certain class of the free

Page 21 view page image

people of these United States shall not enjoy the prerogatives and privileges of freemen, to go where they please, and live where they please, and do what they please, subject only to the common and equal laws and ordinances of the land? Sir, I have said more than I intended to say, and quite as much as I desire to say upon this occasion. I am still of opinion that there is a good hope of saving the bill originally reported by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, bfor the suppression of the trafficin slaves in the District of Columbia. For that bill I shall vote.

I believe it to be a practical and immediate question, and one which is capable of being settled now and at once, to the satisfaction of the whole country. I shall, therefore, vote against all amendments that may tend in nmy judgment to embarrass or defeat its passage. Mr. FOOTE. I have no doubt that I am about to express a sentiment in which all present will concur; it is a sentiment of profound regret and mortification that the admirable speech delivered yesterday by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. WINTIROP) has to-day been entirely destroyed in its effect, thrown into dim eclipse, and nullified, by the speech which we have just heard from his lips. Why, sir, yesterday I listened to that gentleman with a sentiment of rapturous admiration. I could not help recognizing him not only as a high-spirited gentleman, but as a great public benefactor, who, from his local position, as well as from his weight of character and his political affiliations, had it in his power in a very peculiar manner to inflict that sort of chastisement upon the factionists of the country which it is fitting they should receive at the hands of every public-spirited man in the country, and which, unhappily for the Republic, has been but too long deferred. I regret to find that the Senator from Massachusetts now repents the good service he has done, and instead of following up his manly blows until the consummation of a glorious victory over the worst enemies that the republic has been fated to encounter, seems inclined to deplore the collision which has taken place between himself and the Senator from New York, and has even condescended to make a sort of apologetic speech in reply to him. He commenced his speech this morning by expressing his regret that he should have said any thing that had in the least degree stung the sensibilities of the Senator from New York. Why, sir, if the rules of parliamentary decorum, in the judgment of th’at Senator, require that he should go thus far, I have no complaint to utter at his having done so; but surely this cannot be the case; and I fear we will have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the honorable Senator’s present moderation and forbearance. Mr. Foote then proceeded in the same strain to comment upon Mr. Winthrop’s remarks. He was surprised at hearing the Senator from Massachusetts say that he was opposed to Mr.

Pearce’s amendment, which he (Mr. Foote) said was to prevent a great and growing evil in the District. He thought Mr. Winthrop misunderstood the design of the amendment, which he (Mr. Foote) said was merely granting to the corporate authorities of the District the same powers of legislation as are possessed and exercised in all the Slave States in the Union. Mr.

WINTHROP. Mr. President, I shall be very brief in reply to the Senator from Mississippi. He has suggested that there has been some extraordinary difference between my course to-day and my course yesterday; and that some remarks which I have made here this morning have thrown a dim and disastrous eclipse over the brilliant speech which he says I delivered before the Senate last evening. Now I desire to do the Senator from Mississippi the justice to say, that I have never discerned any difference in him; that he never changes; that he is the same to-day, yesterday and every day; and that he always seems ready to come in. like the chorus in the old Greek tragedy, with a note responsive to every change of event and every 21

Page 22 view page image

variety of emotion, to the edification of the Senate, the admiration of the galleries, and no doubt very much to his own personal satisfaction. In the next place, sir, he intimates that there was some collision between the Senator from New York and myself yesterday, and that I have apologized for it unworthily to-day. The Senator is quite mistaken. It was with himself, and not with the Senator from New York, that I had the collision yesterday. That speech which he has done me the honor to characterize as so brilliant and triumphant, was in reply to his own extraordinary and extravagant remark, that the principle maintained here, that we had the power to abolish slavery in the Districf of Columbia, was but the entering wedge which was to rive asunder the bonds of this blessed Uiiion. But, though the Senator would seem to have overlooked the fact that the collision was with himself, I am more than half inclined to think, from the speech which he has just made, that he really has not forgotten it; and that he has only designed to pay off to-day a score which he left entirely unpaid and unacknowledged yesterday. In the next place, sir, the Senator says that he hopes I do not sympathize with the people who come here to commit petit larceny on the property of the South, and that he will at least wait until I declare it myself before he believes that I do.

Now, sir, if he will promise to do what he says, I shall be perfectly satisfied. I have never yet declared that sympathy, and never shall, and therefore the Senator is bound by his own declaration never to believe me to have entertained it. One word more, sir. The Senator has alluded to the proposed restrictions about free negroes in this District; anrid he tells us, for our example and encouragemeet, that they have just such restrictions in the Southern States, and that, therefore, we ought to have them here. Why, sir, we all know that they have these restrictions in the Southern States, and we all know what is the operation of them. Within a few weeks past, the abuses that are perpetrated under these laws have been brought afresh to the attention of the Senate. I refer to the laws under which our free colored seamen are seized on board our merchant ships and imprisoned, their employers deprived of their services and they themselves made liable to be sold as slaves. We know well, sir, and from the bitterest experience, that the Southern States have these laws; and I, for one, will never vote for any provision like this, which gives a virtual sanction to such laws, and which is to set the example and to establish the precedent here, in the very capital of the Republic, of making so odious and opressive a discrimination between the freemen of one color and the freemen of another color, in a land professing to be a land of equality and liberty. After some further remarks by Mr. Foote, the debate was continued as follows: Mr. BUTLER. I was very sorry to hear the Senator from Massachusetts again allude, and in pretty strong language, too, to what he is pleased to term the “abuses’ arising under the police regulations of some of the Southern States, South Carolina included, by which a discrimination is made between white citizens and free negroes. It somehow happens that the commonwealths of Massachusetts and South Carolina are continually in controversy, yet, notwithstanding, I hope we shall continue to maintain our mutual respect for each other. I have heretofore thought it entirely unnecessary to re-open this matter again, after it had been, as I supposed, once disposed of; but I will take the liberty of propounding a question to the Senator from Massachusetts. I believe the Romans and the Greeks regarded the right to be a soldier, and to serve in their armies, as the highest franchise that could be conferred on a man; and in some of our States I think it 22 i IN

Page 23 view page image

23 enters into the right of citizenship. Now, I ask the Senator if he ever saw a black man carrying arms in Massachusetts? Mr. WINTHR{OP. It is very true, Mr. President, that, under the laws of the United States-for the laws of the United States are paramount on the subject-none but whites are enrolled in the Massachusetts minlitia. I have an impression, however, that, not indeed in these piping times of peace, but in the tinie of war, when quite a boy, I have seen black soldiers enlisted, and trained in defence of the country, in my own State. It is an utquestionable fact that they were so enlisted, and did faithful and excellent service. But, however it may have been in the Northern States, I can tell the Senator what happened in the Southern States at this period. I believe that I shall be borne out in saying that no regiments did better service at New Orleans than’the black regiments, which were organized under the direction of Gen. Jackson himself, after a most glowing appeal to the patriotism and honor of the people of color of that region; and which, after they came out of the war, received the thanks of General Jackson, in a proclamation which has been thought worthy of being inscribed on the pages of history.

Mr. BUTLER. The Senator has answered me by saying what I could not have said so well. The Senator says that by the laws of the United States black men are not allowed to serve in the militia, and that answers my question precisely. When the constitution was framed, and when the law of 1794 was passed, the Federal Government, in my opinion, never dreamed, certainly they never expressed the opinion iii their legislative acts, that the black man had the eligibility to become a citizen, and they were therefore not even allowed to enter the militia or to hold commission in the service of the Government. And if we look at the old laws in reference to sailors, we shall find that in the foreign commerce of the counttry none are allowed to become sailors but citizens of the United States, or-native colored men; thus clearly and distinctly discriminating between citizens of the United States and colored men. And if there is this discrimination in the laws of the United States, I should like to know what there is to prevent South Carolina or Louisiana from making a similar discrimnination in their laws?. These very discriminations are recognised and acquiesced in by Massachusetts herself. I doubt very much if the Senator ever saw a black man on a jury there. I do not know whether they are allowed to il,termarry with the whites, though I believe the Senator from New Hampshire said that in his State the black and white men and women were regarded alike. [Laughter.] Sir, these men repudiate the discrimination here when it suits their purpose to assail the South, but they preserve it at home, and there degrade the very persons whom they here elevate by their voices. The black man is put in a much higher scale by their rhetoric than he is by their practice. I repeat, this is a discrimination which is recognised by the constitution itself and by the old laws of Congress, before they were tainted by this new spirit of abstract philanthropy in opposition to the practical wisdom of our ancestors. I do not, therefore, regard it as an abuse in South Caro. lina, with these precedents before her; and there is no just reason for singling out that State for particular animadversion on the subject. There are local laws in many of the States recognizing this discrimination, to which I might allude. On a former occasion I alluded to the fact that a free black man cannot go to Illinois, and they are to be prohibited from going to Ohio, if one of the provisions proposed to form a part of the new constitution shall be allowed to go into effect. In Connecticut they are not allowed tar vote, nor are they, I believe, in New York; and I am informed by my colleague, as the result of his own observation, that in Massachusetts such is the aversion of the white to the black man, that the voters absolutely drive them from the polls at an election, and scorn and spit upon them. It

Page 24 view page image

is only in the Senate chamber, when it suits the purposes of gentlemen, that we hear so much rhetoric on this subject. It is rhetoric without the heart, sir. The heart is not the source from which it flows. And, therefore, I say that when this discrimination is made in the Southern States fi)r their very safety, we are not to be told so emphatically by gentlemen that it is an abuse of the Constitution. I insist, sir, that they have no right to make a black man a citizen in Massachusetts and send him to South Carolina in an entirely different position from that which is conceded to persons of the same class there. Mr. WINTHROP. As the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina would seem to intimate so emphatically that there had been no abuses lender these Southern laws, I beg leave to read to the Senate a letter I received a few days ago, in regard to the debate which recently occurred here on this very subject. It is as follows CHARLESTOWN, (Mass.) August 29, 1850. DEAR SIR: -In reading over the remarks made by a number of honorable Sena tors on the 23d instant, on the amendment proposed by the Honl. JOHiN DAVIs to be affixed to the fugitive slave bill, I find that Senator DAVIS, of Mississippi, challenges any gentleman in the Senate or elsewhere to point out a single case where the steward of a vessel has been seized firom the vessel and carried on shore.

I am astonished at so learned a man proposing such a question that I thought every Southern man must be so familiar with. Why, a few years since it took place daily in New Orleans. Yes, hundreds have been taken out of ships sixty feet from the soil of Louisiana, on the waters of the United States-for the river, I think, belongs to the United States, and sixty feet for the accommodation of travelers and ships. I am a shipmaster, and have traded between New Orleans and Liverpool for many years, and have seen cooks, stewards, and seamen taken handcuffed from many ships by the harbormasters of each municipality, whose duty it was, and have seen them in prison afterwards; and it is done now in every instance of a free colored man going into most ports south of Charleston, including that city. I will now answer the question from my own experience. In 1837 I commanded a Boston ship, and wat from Liverpool to Matanzas, loaded for St. Petersburg, Russia, and two daysout lost my ship in a hurricane. When she went down, took to mny boat and got on board a Charleston brig, which was partially abandoned also. I took her into the port of Charleston against the remonstrances of my crew, especially cook and steward, one a black, the other a mulatto belonging to and a native of Boston, by the name of Dunlop. On my arrival both cook and steward were taken immediately to prison and were kept there while I was there, and how much longrer I do not know; nor do I know whether they were sold for their expenses or not. I went to the prison, and there I sawv many other cooks and stewards of ships then in port, and tried to get mine released and sent away, but could not. It was said that ships would all come in in distress if it was allowed for these to go loose, on the ground of their being brought in as shipwrecked men. I presume a list nearly as long as the longest abolition petition could be made out of names of free colored men who have been taken out of ships in Charleston, Mobile, and New Orleans, for only being black, and greatly to the detriment of the officers and owners of those ships. The trouble it makes is enough to exasperate any shipmaster in the world. Why can they not make a law to make them stay on board when in port? We would not suffer slaves to come on board to work. We can get a plenty of white men now at all times, and they are allowed to do twice the work that slaves will, and it is much more profitable to the ship; and then we should not be forced to take so many outcast foreigners in our cabins as stewards and also cooks, only because they are whites.. I will filish now. I have answered Mr. DAVIS; and I hope he will now inquire into the subject before he asks such a question again. Respectfully, your obedient servant, CHARLES A. RANLETT, a Ship-tnaster of Boston. Hon. R. C. WINTHROP, Washington. -24

Page 25 view page image

25 I think there is enouah, sir, in this one letter, if it be accurate, to jutstify the word abuse, which I used in regard to the execution of these arbitrary laws in the Southern ports. But I have somewhere a memorandum which was:sent me some years ago, when I rmade a report on this subju.ct in the other House, from which it would seem-that these abuses were even more serious than this letter would represent them to he. It is a nemorandum, for the correctness of which I will not vouch, and which I hope is as extravagant as it certainly seems to be on its face. But from this it would seem that the number of colored seamen imprisoned in New Orleans during a single year was twelve hundred, in Charleston five hundred, in Savannah three hundred, and in Alabama five hundred. This was an estimate made by a person who then kept the colored sailors’ home in the city of New York, and who seemed to have more informration in regard to this question of colored seamen than any body else at the time. I think that if such an estimate has any approach to,ccuracy, the Senator, from South Carolina will not call me to task for havingt used the word abuse, in connection with these laws. Mr. BERR1EN. If the Spnator will -llow me.

I am very glad to hear that the Senator did not vouch for the truth of the statement in regard to Savannah, and in my place here I atlirm it to he untrue. Mr. WIN’tHROP. I anm very glad to hear it. The statement may be ever so greatly exaggerated; but if there is one person in the country who believes it to be true, it furnishes an ample reason for desiring that tie facts of the case should be properly investigated. But, as the Senator tfrom North Carolina, (Mr. BAD(GElI,) whose kind expression this mnorning I cordially reciprocate, so eloquently said yesterday on another subject, it is not a qilestion of numbers, butt of principle. Our objections to these laws do not depend on the numbers imprisoned or enslaved under them, but on the prin ciple, or rather on the violation of all principle, which they involve. Sir, if there be but one man seized on board a ship where he is rightfully employed, and cast into prison, and rendered liable to be sold as a slave, the law is as justly obnoxious to the feelings of every freeman in the country as if there were five hundred or five thousand. I will notice a single other point in the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina before I leave the subject. He seems to think that there is no part of the cou,try where free negroes have been recognized as citizens.

Now, sir, whethler this be so or not, is no part of the question before us. They are recozn-ized as freemen; and thle question is, in what part of the consti tution of the United States do you find any discriminiAtion between different classes of freemen? The question. as I have said bef)re, is often asked here, where is there any power in the constitution to discriminiate between different classes of property; and I ask the question’in return, where is the power in the constitution to discriminate between different classes of free persons? Why, sir, this’ very question has, once at least, been argued before a Southern tribunal. And I will refer the Senator from South Carolina to at least one decision which involves the very principle at issue. It is the case of the State vs.

Manuel,. in Devereux and Bat tle’s North Carolina Reports. It was decided by one of the most eminent men of North Carolina, well known, while he lived, to many of the Senators present, and whIose memory is still esteemed and honored in all parts of the country. I mean the late Judge Gaston. Here is his opini(-)on on this sub-‘ ject, and, as it is a Southern opinion, I shall require no apology for citing it at some len~gth. He says: “It was insisted, however, in argument by the Attorney General, that it was un necessary to enter into the examination of these constitutional prohibitions, for that t’ie d fen]Jnt can sot up no right anl claim no benefit from them, because he is 3

Page 26 view page image

26 not a citizen of North Carolina. The positions of the Attorney General are, first, that these provisions, being contained in the fundamental law by which the people of North Carolina, theretofore a colony and dependency of Great Britain, rising in revolt against the oppressions of the mother country, constituted and declared themselves a sovereign and independent State, all the securities provided in that fundamental law, either for persons or property, and all the inhibitions against wrong, were designed exclusively for the benefit of those who were constituent members of that State, and of such as by inheritance or subsequent incorporation into that political body should thereafter become members thereof; and, secondly, that persons of color, whether born free or emancipated firom slavery, were not originally members of that political body, and never since have been incorporated into it. tVe do not yield our assent to either of these positions in the extent in which they have been asserted.” * X “It is not necessary to examine very particularly the argument upon the second position, which in its course assumed on both sides very much the character of a political discussion. According to the laws of this State, all human beings within it who are not slaves, fall within one of two classes. Whatever distinctions may have existed in the Roman law between citizens and free inhabitants, they are un known to our institutions.

Before our revolution all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. Slavery did not exist in England, but it did exist in the British colonies. Slaves were not, in legal parlance, persons, but property. The moment the incapacity or disqualifi cation of slavery was removed they became persons, and were then either British subjects or not British subjects, accordingly as they were or were not born within the allegiance of the British King. Upon the Revolution no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dapendant on a European King to a free and sovereign State. Slaves re mained slaves. British 4bjects in North Carolina became North Carolina free men. Foreigners until made memnibers of the State, continued aliens.

Slaves manumitted here became freemen, and therefore if born within North Carolina are citizens of North Carolina, and all free persons born within the State are born citi zens of the State. “A few only of the principal-objections which have-been urged against this view of what we consider the legal doctrine will be noticed. It has been said that by the Constitution of the United States the power of naturalization has been con ferred exclusively upon Congress, and therefore it cannot be competent for any State by its municipal regulations to nimake a citizen. But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disobilities of alienage.

Emancipation is the removal of the incapacity of slavery. The latter depends wholly upon the internal regulations of the State; the former belongs to the Government of the United States. It would be a dangerous mistake to confound.theln. “,It has been said that before our Revolution free persons of color did not exercise the right of voting for members of the Colonial Legislature. How this may have been it would be difficult at this time to ascertain. It is certain, however, that very few, if any, could have claimed the right of suffrage, for a reason of a very different character from the one supposed. T”he principle of freehold suffrage seens to have been brought over from England with thle first colonists, and to have been preserved almost invariably in the colony ever afterwards. In the act of 1743, ch. 1, (Swann’s Revisal, 171,) it will be seen that a freehold of fifty acres was necessary to entitle the inhabitant of a county to vote; and by the act of 2d September, of 1746, ch. 1, ibid. 223, thefreeholders only of the respective towns of Edenton, Bath, Newbern, and Wilmington were declared entitled to vote for members of the Colonial Legislature. The very Congress which framed our constitution was chosen by freeholders. That constitution extended the elective franchise to every f-eeman who had arrived at the agre of twenty-one, and paid a public tax; and it is a matter of universal notoriety that under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from free men of color a fe.r years since by our amended constitution. But surely the possession of political poster is not essential to constitute a citizen. If it be, then women, minors, auld persons who have not paid public taxes are not citizens and free white men who have paid public taxes and arrived at full age, but have not a freehold of

Page 27 view page image

fifty acres, inasmuch as they may vote for one branch and cannot vote for the other branch of our Legislature, would be in all intermediate state, a sort of hybrids between citizens and non-citizens. The term’citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted fronm the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was’a subject of the King’ is now’a citizen of the State.”’ So much, sir, for the opin;on of this ernmitent and excellent judge of the old North State. Anrd my friend from Conntecticut (Mr. BAL,DWIN) has just handed me another reference, which is altogether pertinent to the sante poitt. I read now from a statute of the State of Virginia, passed December 3, 1792, one section of which is as filliows: “All free persons born within the territory of this Commonwealth, all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under former laws, and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commnonwealth until they relinquish that character in the manner hereinafter mentioned.” Mly friend from Connecticut suggests that the original I,aw passed in 1779 contain,ed the distinction o(f color, and that the words ” white persons,” were stricken out at the time this law was re ettacted(i in 1-I92. It would th,us, seemr that the old Comtnnonwealth of Virginia too has recognized colored persons as citizens. With these authorities I will once more take leave of the question. and not trespass further on the time of the Senate.

Mr. BUTLER. I am sorry I am not so well prepared on this subject, either with ammunition in my own drawer, or with such as is supplied by my neighbors. The Senator from Massachusetts has read to us a letter from a Captain Ranlett, and I have a word to say on that point. If you, Mr. Pres idenrt, as a slaveholder-and I believe I nmay say it of the slaveholders in general-had found your servant in jail, as I sometimes have found mine in traveling the circuits, you would not have permitted him to remain there for a moment, for you would have paid the money necessary to obtain his re. lease; and yet this man, who is preaching to us on philanthropy, by his own confession found his own sailors incarcerated under a local law, and he suf fered them there to remain with the certainty on his mind that they were to become slaves! And hie is to read a lecture to us and to the people of the South on philanthropy! I suppose these people of color were temporarily placed in custody under a local law until the captain of the vessel was ready to leave the port and take them with him, and he basely abandoned his crew to become slaves itn South Carolina, rather than pay a stmall amount for their release; and yet he is the man who sends a letter here prating about abuses under the local laws of the slaveholding portion of this community! Yes, sir, we have ” Ranlett on humanity,” “

Ranlett on freedom,” ” Rantlett dn constitutional abuses,” by a man who would leave his own sailors, to whom he was bound by every tie which honor could impose-I speak of ” honor,” sir-ill jail, there to rot, or to become slaves. And yet he is the man who presents himself here as censor morutm, or lecturer on philanthropy! Sir, what credit is due to a man who, by his own collfession, has committed an act like that? I repeat, sir, if I had a body servant who had been arrested by the patrol for being without a pass, as we call it, and comtnitted to jail, no matter what might be the hour or what the inclemency of the weather, I would go to his rescue and take him out of custody by paying the tmoney for his release. But this Captain Ranlett sutffers his own crew to remain in prison rather than pay a few dollars to release theri! More than that, he subjected themit to the risk of being sold to slavery, and thus suffered the destiny of a human t 27

Page 28 view page image

28 being to be controlled by his omission to do ant) act of humanity!‘This, sir, is a pretty fair specimen of what they call philanthropy in some of these free States. The difference between their theory and their practice could not be better illustrated than it has been by the imposing document of this Capt. Ranrlett, which the Senator has jJst read to us. I shall not unidertake to deny that such a law exists, or that under it per sons are arrested; but I do not believe that under it any one was ever sold into slavery. And, sir, this discritnination will exist as long as the circutr stances exist which required its est;iblishmentt. If the Senator from Massa ehusetis klinewv the circutnstances under which this law was adopted, I scarecly think he would persist in the course he is pursuing. If hle did, his position woul(l be very like that of the man who was up in the portico, when the escaped lioni was tearing the people to pieces. Looking down upon the scene, his only exclamatio.n was, how glad I am that I am up stairs.” [Laughter.] So long as Massachusetts is not subject to the hazards to which the Southern States are exposed, he may feel quite ” glad thli;t he is up stairs,” and satisfy hinmself with that consolation. Why, sir, the city of Charleston would( have been committed to the flames, its citizens murdered, and crimes which I cannot name conmmnitted, through the murderous and incendiary arrangement fl,r an insurrection, made through this very class of persons, who came into the city to delude and deceive the slaves, who are better off than themselves, but for a timely discovery of the plot.

And yet the burning of cities, the murder of men, and the commission of other more horrid crimes, seem to stand as nothing in the way of honorable gentlemen who choose to philosophize about abstract philanthropy. But for this agitation, I believe that we should have gone on amicably in our legislation between the different States, but the South never will be driven to any course by the arguments of your Capt. Ranletts. Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. While temporarily absent from my seat, I am informed that the Senator from Massachusetts read a letter referring personally to myself. Now I lay no claim to the amount of intelligence which his correspondent seems to award to me, but I do claim to have used due caution in getting information. Before I made that statement here, I made inquiry among those best informed on the subject, and I learned that the arrests of free persons of color, coming in vessels to the ports named, had been of those persons who had been on shore, and thus violated the police regulations which the absolute necessity of the case had required these cities to establish - police regulations to prevent the murder of the inhabitants, and the burnirng of the city by incendiaries, prompted by fanatics baser than the slaves whom thev use as instrurienits for arson and murder. The Senator from Massa.Ilhusetts reads the letter, I ask himt does he endorse it? Mr. WIN’FHr-ROP. I do not understand what the Senator means by endorsino it Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. Does he adopt the statement as his own? Mr. WINTHROP. Certainly not. I know inothing of the statement or the perso)n, further than the letter itself furnishes evidence. I read the letter as I received it by due course of mail. And I showed it to the Senator from Mississippi before I read it to the Senate, and therefore 1 have taken 1no0 advantage of his absence Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. I am not in the habit of reading letters to the Senate unless I can voutch for the truth of what they contain. I am not in the habit of parading my private correspo(ndence before the Senate, or of attempting to impugn the statements of my brother Senators here by letters from those w.ho I am not prepared to endorse. With a modicum of intelligence olily, I had not so much credulity as to credkt the statements on which the Senator relies. I therefore made inqui 1

Page 29 view page image

ries ill quarters I believed to be most reliable, and arrived at the conclusion that the statements of the letter which was read by the Senator were un ft)undled, absolutely false. I know something personally of a portion of what is involved in this assertion. I reside so near to New Orleans, and visit it so often, it being my market town, as to have some opportunity to know what is done there. There are two Senators upon this floor who know more about it than myself. There are two Senators who can speak for Charleston, and the Presiding Officer can speak for Mobile. I believe the whole state ment to be a groundless aspersion, put forth by an abolitionist, and I am sorry that the Senator from Massachusetts has so far forgotten what was due to \this body, and to himself, as to introduce it upon this floor. .’ The PRESENT’r. The Senator will observe order. r.

DAVIS, of Mississippi. These are times, sir, when men might be xcused for forgetting( to nmeasure their language. When the moral character 4f one entire sectioni of the Union is assailed, it is time for those who value it to speak in langiiage not to be misunderstood. I will, however, endeavor to retineiber the rules of debate. The charge, nriot now for the first time brought forward, involves a multi tude of crimes. It is an attempt to pervert a necessary police regulation into a systerm for the capture of freemen, that they may be reduced into slavery. Whatever faults the people of the South may have, I speak confi dently when I say kidnapping is inot among them. Sir, there is no community more entirely opposed to reducing any free mant to slavery than that which I have the honor to represent. There is no man of standing in that community who vwoutld not contribute from his purse to relieve any human being, however black, whom the vicissitudes of the sea should drive to their shore, instead of taking advantage of his misfortune to reduce him to bondage.

There is not a lawyer in that community who woul(l not step forward and voluntarily advocate the cause of any free man thus arrested. Sir, when vessels come into any of the ports that have been named, an(l lie at anchor, or steamboats come to at the landing of that river which bears on its bosom the wealth of the great valley of the West to its depot, New Orleans, I am well assured that no civil officer would step upon their decks to inspect the crew, that he might arrest any free colored man found on board; and am still more certain that such arrest would never be made to reduce him to slavery. But when the safety of our towns is endan gered, when the peace of our citizens is involved by the free negrqes sent among us as emissaries to instigate the slave population to insurrection, then the highest law of nature, the law of self-preservation, requires that the civil officer should interpose and arrest such dangerous persons. I (do not know how far the Senator from South Carolina has considered this question, as connected with the city of Charleston, but it is a matter of history that the second delegate from Massachusetts to South Carolina was one who was sent for the purpose of counteracting those regulations designed to prevent the instigation of the slaves to arson and murder. The first was sent when brave men, resolved to resist oppression by power, unmindful or regardless of right, sought for aid in the generosity and fraternity of the Southern colonies. The difference in the purpose and spirit of these mis sions, is typical of the political and rhoral change which time and circum stances have wrought. Disregarding the necessity to meet which this police regulation was enacted, they sent the second ambassador to Charleston to see whether that regulation could not be annulled, and to institute private and insidious in quiries into the domestic institutions of the city, for purposes which it was the part of prudence to suspect. If, Mr. President, these States are united as one family if, indeed, we 3* 29

Page 30 view page image

are to view each other as a confederated people, it is necessary that thlis hos ility to Southern interests-this war upoi, the domestic peace and security this constant outrage on the teelings of the South, should cease. Were we without the restrictions of the c(Iistitution-were we a people relying upon our own hearts anid hands for the preservation of our rights, these invasions would not probably have gotie so long utinredressed. Thus have sectional rivalry and fanatic hate, instead o,f restrainit, found sheller and, pretext in our Union. The enmity is rendered worse by the fact of brotherhood. They woul.Id Iot have been able to do so much harm as a foreigni nation. As aliens, they must have observed the termis of the treaty, or incur the respon sibilities of war; now they aggress under the forms of the constitution. That which was made to unite all for the protection of each, is bent to the purpose,f the doiniant party. They disregard the comity of nations, in stead of observing the fraternity of confederated States. It is time these things should cease. I am sorry, Mr. President, that the Senator from Massachusetts, a ripe scholar and( a genrtlemlan, wvho knows what is due to others as well as what is due to iminself. has produced( his private correspondence before the Senate, and without being willing to adopt the statements, reads them in reply to the remarklis lie had elicited by his course oln a former occasion. Why bring forth a preserved letter fiorD, as it appears, an unknown correspondent, referring by name to a Senator, and bearing( testimony in a case much too imnportant to be thus decided? I repeat, sir, that I have inquired into the matter, and believe that what has been stated with regard to the arres,t and sale of free persons in Southern ports, is entirely untrue. Mr. WIN i’ItROP. One word only, Mr.

President, in reference to what has fallen fromn the Senator front Mississippi, (Mr. DAVIs.) I read in the hearing of the Senate, a few moments since, a letter from Capt. C. A. Ran lett, of Charlestown, Mass;ichusetts. We have just heard the indignant ex clamatiotis of the Senator on the occasion. I beg leave now to repeat that, before reading it, I showed it to the Senator, and he receivedi it in the kind est and most friendly manner. He did not then think himself dishonored by reading it, and exaining it, and commenting upon it, although he did ex press a douibt as to the accuracy of some of the statefienlts it contained. I have nothing mnore to add upon that point. I now turn to the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. If the Senator from Massachusetts will permit me, before he leaves thatsubject, I will say-another word. Mr. WIN’[HROP. Oh! certainly. Mr. D)AVIS, of Mississippi. I did niot consider the Senator from Massachusetts dishonored by receiving that letter any more than I considered myself dishoinoredl by reading it. I read it when it was handed to rme, as the Senator -has just stated. On that occasion I thought’ his conduct entirely proper. I made riay comnients, as he hlas stated, in a friendly manner; but I did no(t expect that he would parade such poor testimony before the Senate and the country. Mr. WVINT’HROP. Why really, Mr. President, I do n(iot know that I am bound to conform myself in all cases to the expectations of the Senator from Mississippi. I do not know that it is his prerogative to control the corre.-p,,ndence which comes to me; nor do I know that I anii not as free to say what I please, and to read what I please, in the Senate of the United States, as the Senator from Mississippi, evenr though I am a so,iiewhat younger member of this body than he is. As to aiMy impropriety which may be, charged upon me in connection with this subject, I shall leave it to the :Senate and to the country to judge, on the whole, who has been itiost forget’ful of what is due-to this body and to himself; here to-day, and who has most nearly conformed to the course which courtesy and the rules of the C)O 0 II

Page 31 view page image

31 Senate demand. Sir, there is not one word’in that letter which bears upon the Senator from Mississippi-not a syllable. Even if I had not read it privately to him in advance, I should have felt myself perfectly justified in reading it to the Seinate, either before his face or behind his back. It calls in question his opinion, it is true; but is he so authorized to pronounce ex cathedra upon this subject, or upon any other subject, that nobody is to call his opinion in quest ion? Anrd is an honest Boston ship-miaster- as I have no reason to doubt that this man is-who speaks what he says he knows, and testifies to what he has seen and experienced, not to be allowed to cast any doubt upon the accuracy of the opinion of that Senator, without being branded as a liar, and without having his letter denounced as false? Sir, I have found this, that when we come to the pinching point, and when the testirlony begins to bear hard upon the operation of these Southern laws, then the character of the witness is to be assailed. This is always the resort of a desperate case.

This plain-spoken sea captain, whose very vocation is a guaranty of his honesty, tells us what has happened to him in the city of Charleston-a city, let me say, for which I have the utmost regard, where I have friends and relatives whom I respect and love, and about which I would say nothing offensive or unkind. Sir, the Senator from South Carolina seems to think that this man is to be disbelieved, that his testimony is false, because he acknowledges that he left these p)or people in jail in Charleston. It is true that he has given no explanation of that matter; but I dare say that when he reads this debate, and learns the view that has been taken here of his course, and perceives how grossly his character has been assailed, he may write another letter, and perl-haps J imay be allowed, in spite of the reproaches of the Senator from Mississippi, to read that letter also in justification of his conduct in that respect. Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi, (in his seat ) And perhaps if you do, sir, I may be allowed to express mry opinion upon your conduct. The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Mississippi must not interrupt the Senator.‘I’he Chair cannot allow these interruptions. Mr. WINTR.tiROP. We have freedom of speech here, sir, I believe, and I intend to exercise it. But, as I was saying(, if the Senator from South Carolina thinks it was so barbarous a thing on the part of this sea captain o10 leave these people in jail, and intrust them to the tender mercies of the laws of South Carolina, what a condemination does he not pass upon those laws themselves? Sir, the Senator fromti South Carolina says that this man is to be disbelieved; that he is to be regarded as a falsifier; that his testimony is not to be credited, because he was so inhuman as to leave two poor negroes to the tender mercies of the laws of the city of Charleston. What, then, I repeat, must be the character of those laws, according to the Senator’s own testimony? Mr.

BUTLER. I did not say that these negroes were left to the tender mercies of the city of Charleston; because I am fully persuaded that, had they been so left, some person would have interposed and paid the demands which miglit have existed against them, and thus have obtained their release from cotnfinemrent. I said a very different thing, Mr. President. I said that this man-this sea captain believed that these negroes would be sold into slavery; and with that conviction upon his mind he abandoned them, and left them in prison. I did not say this by way of mnaking a commentary upon the ” tender mercies of the city of Charleston.” But I will answer for it that the negroes who were thus deserted to the “tender mercies of the city of Charleston” found their redemption. I do not state it as a fact;, but, from what I know of the character of that people, I think it is highly probable.

Page 32 view page image

32 Mr. WINTHROP. Sir, we had some testimony on this point given us by the Senator from Connecticut (Mr BALDWIN) some weeks ago. He testified that one colored man who sailed from a port of Connecticut had been sold as a slave, and that under sotie process of law he was afterwards released from servitude. Am I correct? Mr. BALDWIN. I think he was sold; but I do not know whether he was ever released Mr. WINT’I’HROP. I am not bound to go further in defence of Captain Ranlett. He will, perhaps, be able to speak for himself hereafter. But, sir, what were the circumstances in which he was placed? He was shipwrecked when two days out from Charleston, and took to his boat. When in his boat he came up with a Carolina vessel which had been abandoned. He went on board of that vessel and carried her safely into Charleston; and as a recompense for having saved this Charleston vessel, his cook and steward, who were friendless and penniless, and who had just escaped from the perilsof shipwreck, were imprisoned in jail; and whent he applied to have them released, it was objected that it was contrary to the law of the State; and that if it were done in this case, every free colored man who came there might make the excuse of having been brought there in distress. Why, sir, what means had this captain to p)rocure the release of these men? He was shipwrecked himself and had lost his own vessel. The law of South Carolina says that when free persons of color are thus imprisoned, the captain of the vessel in which they arrived may take them out of prison on paying all the costs and charges, when he is about to sail. But this man had no vessel to sail in. He had lost his own. He had saved the Charleston vessel, and, as a reward for having done so, his cook and steward were cast into jail, and he was not allowed to release them. This is his story. If his conduct was barbarous in leaving these men to the operation of the laws of South Carolina, why then, sir, I repeat, the laws of South Carolina must be of such a character as the Senator from South Carolina hinmself can perhaps best explain. But what better evidence of the character of this law can we desire than that which the Senator from South Carolina himself has mentioned? He tells us that one branch of the Legislature of that State has already repealed or greatly modified this law. It is so. I have read the debates; and in these debates it is recogniized throughout that, by the law as it now stands, search may be imad(le on board of a vessel, and the colored men found there may be dragged forth and imprisoned. And the very change which one branch of the Legislature of South Carolina proposed, on this occasion, is the change which this Ca;pt. Ranlett has himself suggested-namely, to stop short with prohibiting these people of color from going on shore. As the law now stands they are seized in their cabins or at their cabooses, wh-ile on board ship, an(l before they come on shore. I say, then, that the representative branch of the Legislature of South Carolina have themselves borne testimony to ihe inexpediency and injustice of this law, and have done what they could to repeal it. Sir, I am extremely sorry to be drawn into a discussion so inflammatory as that which has sprung up. I must, however, add one word more in re ard to Captain Ranleit. The Senator from South Carolina appears to think that he ought to have remained in Charleston, and helped to get these negroes out of prison. Perhaps the Senator is right in this opinion. But have we not had some experience upon that subject, subsequent, it is true, to the event which Captain Ranlett relates? Have we not sent one of our most excellent and eminent citizens there, for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of this law, and of rescuing those who were imprisoned under it, and has he not been proscribed and driven away out of the State? He was driven away, indeed, with courtesy andfcomity, I acknowledge for he him I T 8 I

Page 33 view page image

33 self has testified that the gentlemen of Charleston treated him with the greatest kindness-they are incapable of doing otherwise. But still they told hiin that go he must, and that the constitutionality of these Southern lawvs could not and should not be tried. Mr. BUTLER. Mr.

President, I very much regret that this discussion has arisen, and that it has progressed thus far; but really when a man kindles a fire he must not complain if it burns him. The honorable Senator puts fire to, the heap and now he complains that it is too hot. Mr. WINTHROP. No, sir; I have made no such complaint, nor has the fire been of mny kindling. Mr. BUTLER. He who loads his gun too heavily, must not complain of its rebound when he discharges it. I do not know the facts in this case, and 1 wish to be cautious in what I say in all matters of this kind. IThe honorable Senator from Massachusetts assumes that this man has told the truth. He says he left these negroes at Charleston,‘knowing that they would be liable to be,old as slaves; and the Senator makes an apology for himr, to the effect that, if he had endeavored to have them released, he might have shared the fate of another gentlemen who went subsequently to South Carolina. Mr.

President, so far as I can speak from my own conscientious conviction, if I had perished in the attempt, I would have gone back and endeavored to rescue those men. I do not say that their conditio(n was a hard one. I am somewhat acquainted with the arrangements made for the custody of these people. They are surrounded by a high wall, it is true; but they are fed and taken care of, and are not subjected to what would be regarded as confinement in a loaihes(-ome prison. They are simply kept from going at large, until the captain of the vessel in which they came goes and asks for them, and takes them back with him to his ship. But how did these men get in there? Why, sir, they went there, doubtless claiming salvage. Mr.

WINTHROP. There is no such fact,stated in the letter, nor am I aware that it was so. Mr. BUTLER. I suppose it to be a fact. You say that these men saved the ship. You may be so generous in Massachusetts that even the black people from that State would not claim salvage. If that is the ground upon which you put it, it will appear that they earned this salvage, but would not ask for it. Mr. WINTHROP. The Senator is traveling out of the record. I have said nothing about salvage. Mr BUTLER. The record! A record made by Captain Ranlett! I should like to know something more about that record! Is he a prothonotary, or a notary public? Or is it one of those spontaneous records which some men make with the facility of talking. There are persons who both speak and write with facility, but unadvisedly. I do not know that this man has told a falsehood when he says that these negroes were put in jail; but, much as I am reconciled to the institution of slavery, I never can be inspired with sufficient confidence to believe the statements of a man who abandons part of his own ship’s crew, with the certain prospect, as he thought, of their b)einr sold into slavery, when by a few dollars he could have rescued them. How did these men escape from their condition, sir? This Captain Ranlett says that he left thenm in jail, and he does not know whether they were sold into slavery or not. I will answer that they were never sold. But it is clear from the course which he puirsued that he did not care whether they were or not. lie never inquired. So much for ” Ranlett on humanity.” Ti’he Senator from Massachusetts has laid down two great propositions. The first is, that Captain Ranlett, who leaves his own crew in prison at the risk of their being sold into slavery, is a very respectable manr; and the second is, that the people of Massachusetts, after having earned salvage, would not claim it.

Page 34 view page image

34 Mr. WINTHROP. I said no such thing. I will thank the Senator not to put words into my mouth which I did not use. Mr. BUTLER. And does the Senator say I have no right to draw the inference? Mr. WVINTFIROP. I say nothing on the subject. Mr. BUTLER. Then I draw the inference that the people from Massachusetts would not claim salvage. Mr. WIN”H[ROP. Well, MAIr.

President, we have had the tragedy, and now I suppose we are having the fdrce. [Lauighter.] Mr. DOWNS. The laws of the States of South Carolina and Louisiana, and some other Southern States, relating to free persons of color, have been frequently referred to during this session, and especially by both of the Senators from Massachusetts, but I have not heretofore deemed myself called upon to make any remarks or explanations on the subject. But there have been somte developtnents to-day, so extraordinary and so unheard of, that I am apprehensive that unless they are noticed it may be considered that there is some little truth in them.

So far as louisiana is concerned, and, I believe, so far as Alabama or the city of Mobile is concerned, [ know these statements are utterly unfounded. So utterly unfounded, and so uttquestionably false have these statements heretofore been, that I have passed then) by without the slightest notice; but when they are brought forward as they have been here, by a person in such a position, so) connected with the Government, having held such high positions elsewhere as well as here, I think some attention to them is called for. Why, sir, the letter of Capt. Ranlett was extraordinary enough, but.it rises into dignity when compared with anothcr instrument which the gentlemnan has brought forward. This is a certificate-from whom? Does he go to the statistics of these States or any where else for authority to prove that a certain number of persons of color have been confined in the manner he has described? No, sir; but he brings forward the certificate of the keeper of a negro hotel in the city of New York. This man states in his certificate that twelve hundred free persons of color, have been thus seized on board of their vessels and taken on shore and confined in New Orleans. And that is to be considered sufficient evidence of such a charge on this floor! If this will not astonish this nation, I cannot conceive of any thing that will do it. Now, Mr. President, as to the reproach castupon South Carolina by this famous Massachusetts captain, does the gentleman pretend to voutich here for the facts of those statements? Does he think that colored mariners, cast on shore in Charleston, were sent to’prison and kept there and in danger of being sold? Utiless he vouches for it I will not believe it; it is so utterly at variance with what I know to be the Southern character, and to all humanity elsewhere. Is this to be admitted on the testimony of an utnknown and irresponsible individual? And is the certificate of a negro tavern-keeper, or I kn,ow not what, to be taken on such a subject as this.

It cannot be: it will not be. Mr. President, since this subject was before the Senate on a previous occasion, I have taken some painls to inquire into the facts, so far as New Orleans is concerned, and I feel authorized to say that these charges are tinfounded It is true, there is a law, a rigid law upon this subject, which is necessary for our peace and safety as a police regulation; but it is never carried further than is absolutely necessary to secure the peace and safety of the people. I’do not know that it was ever enforced; I believe it was pretty much a dead letter, except in very rare cases indeed, until this emissary from Massachusetts visited New Orleans. Since that time, perhaps, the law has been more rigidly enforced, and a few more persons have beeri sent to prison. This shows the tendenicy of the action of those who have

Page 35 view page image

35 interfered with our institutions, that it is to make more stringent laws neces sary in all the slave States, in consequence of the agitation in the Northern States. I have been informed that during my absence for a few moments, an allusion was made to the free colored persons who served in the army at the time of the attack upon that city by the B3ritish. They did serve in that army with bravery and with honor. Not only were there free colored persons in that army from New Orleans, but from Tennessee, for at that time free colored persons did serve in the militia from that State. I happen to know something with regard to those free colored persons who remained in New Orleans; and I know that some of them served most bravely, and that some of them have certificates which they received fronti General Jackson himself. But it is not so now; that thing is changed, and it is changed in consequence of the agitation that has been produced upon this subject. If you were to believe the statements that have been made here with regard to New Orleans, you would be led to suppose that the free colored people there were the most oppressed and injured people in the world. If the Senator who has produced these statements had been as careful in getting information from proper sources as he has been to get the certificate of the kleeper of a negro boarding-house in New York, he would have ascertained that there are more free colored people, perhaps, there than there are slaves; many of whom own property in slaves themrselves, and who conduct themselves so as to secure respect every-where. If the gentleman will go there and make his examinations with respect to those persons who come there on boats, he will find that they are not imprisoned and are not oppressed; he will find that on almost all the boats which run either from the free or slave States oni the Mississippi river, there are many colored persons. Is it customary to imprison them in the port of New Orleans? Not at all. He will find that it is customary for them to go on shore and let them perform duties connected with their boats on board of them, and every where else.

I believe it is the same with respect to those who act on board ships, but I think it is probable that those vessels which come from Massachusetts, that State which is always making such interference, whose captains make such statements as we have had read here, and whose Senators read such certificates from the keepers of negro boarding-houses, are a little more narrowly watched. I should not be surprised if a pretty sharp look-out was kept upon them; but it is not done when honest people come there. No, sir, when boats come from Indiana and Illinois, and other parts of the country, where the people know how to behave themnselves, and do behave themselves, they are never interfered with. When the gentleman brings forward such letters or such certificates as he has read, I should like to have him bring forward some fact which would authorize him to say that one of these negroes who had been imprisoned in New Orleans was ever sold. I am not prepared myself to go into details; but I can assure that Senator that even when a person is convicted under the law, so far from being sold into slavery, the penalty is a very light one, it is only imprisonment for a short time for the first offence, and for the second offence it is only a little longer imprisonment. It has never been the case that any man has been sold into slavery, so far as I know, nor do I believe that a man would be allowed to be sold. I happen, Mr. President, to know pretty well the history of the emissary (Mr. Hubbard) who was sent to New Orleans on this subject. He came there, and not knowing very well how to proceed in his business, having addressed a letter to the Governor, of which no notice was taken, and finding that nobody was inclined to encourage him in making a disturbance there, he was a good deal at a loss to know how to proceed. It so happened that the gentlemaii to whom he brought his letter of introduction showed that letter to me, and asked my advice as to the manner inl which he had better

Page 36 view page image

36 proceed. I told him that, under all the circumstances, the best thing for Mr. Hubbard to do was to leave as soon as possible; that it was utterly impracticable for him to execute his mission; that we had lawyers and courts, and that no man, bond or free, had any rights which could not be enforced; but that the State would not tolerate the idea that a mere police regulation of vital importance to them should be intrusted to others, or interfered with; or that gentlemen from other States should come there, and set up their own standards for our regulation. This he was told could not be permitted. But although the Governor took no notice of this individual, yet, to convince Massachusetts that there was nothing harsh or in violation of correct principles in our action, he submitted the whole subject to the Legislature-to call their attention to the question whether in their opinion further legislation was necessary. The whole subject was taken up in both Houses of our Legislature, by a joint conmnittee of which I was a member, and a distinguished judge of the present Supreme Court of our State-was another. A report was made which I have not now here, but which I believe was considered conclusive and satisfactory at the time by every person, that the lawvs of Louisiana and those of Sduth Carolina were not in violation of any rights given to citizens of the United States under the constitution. We put it on that ground. We sent Mr. Hubbard quietly and peaceably away, and we convinced the community that wve were right. And now, when the subjects which have agitated us so long seemed to have been disposed of, and when we were likely to have a little peace and quiet; now, that Othello’s occupation may not be entirely gone, now, at this last moment, lest theagitation should cease altogether, this’subject, which had been laid aside for ten years, is brought tip, and we have, instead of legitimate evi dence upon the subject, a letter read from this celebrated sea captain who deserted his crew, and a certificate from the keeper of a negro boarding house in New York. This is the character of the evidence with respect to the working of the laws of Louisiana and South Carolina in the ports of New Orleans and Charleston. Mr. WINTHROP. When I was a boy, Mr. President, there used to be a saying that “three upon one was two too many.” But now, I seem to have brought the whole chivalry of the South about my ea?s.

First came the hon orable Senator from South Carolina; and next the Senator from Mississippi; and now the Senator from Louisiana has galvanized himself into a towering fit of indignation, and indulged himself in somne very contemptuous remarks with regard to a certain statemerit, to which I thought proper to allude. The Senator knows that for the contents of that paper I did not vouch. I’he Senator knows that I have sought no evidence from any of those sources of which hlie has spoken with so much contempt. I said expressly that the paper was placed in my hands many years ago, and that it contained the estimate of a person who had many opportunities of knowing the facts. I have used it, as I had a right to do, leaving others to judge how far it was correct; and let me add, that Senators will be much better employed in disproving the facts which it states, than in denouncing the source from which it comes, or the channel through which it has been presented to their notice. Mr.

President, I do not intend to protract this controversy further; but this I do say, in conclusion, that I am not to be deterred from bringing be fore Congress and the country, during the period in which I niay have the opportunity of holding a seat in the Senate, the abuses-for I repeat the term-the gross abuses which are practised, under the authority of the laws of certain Southern States, upon the free colored seamen of the Northern States, either by sneers, ridicule, or insult. These are the desperate expe dients of a bad cause, and are always resorted to by those upon whom the i

Page 37 view page image

37 testimony presses too hard. They will be utterly disregarded by me. I shall leave them to their own natural and inevitable recoil. After a few words from Mr. Pearce, the Senate adjourned. THURSDAY, September 12, 1850, The Senate having under consideration the bill to suppress the slave trade in the District of Columbia, the debate was continued as follows: MR.

SOULE. Mr. President, I do not wish to interpose the least obstacle to the progress of the bill on your table; nor will I detain the Senate at any length on the subject which calls me up. During the course of debate yesterday, repeated allusions were made to the legislation of Louisiana, in respect to the free people of color immigrating thither from other States, and to the manner in which that legislation was enforced, which require from me some words of explanation. The honorable Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. WINTHROP,) in referring to that matter, read from a letter which he had the kindness to place in my hands this morning, as the authority on which rested the information which he communicated to the Senate. That I may not mistake the terms in which the information is conveyed in that letter, I beg leave to read from it those lines which concern New Orleans: ” Why, a few years since (says the writer, speaking of the arrest of free colored persons) it took place daily at New Orleans, on board ships mooring at the port of New Orleans. Yes, hundreds have been taken out of ships sixty feet from the soil of Louisiana, on the waters of the United States-for the river, 1 believe. belongs to the United States.

1 am a shipmaster, and have traded between New Orleains and Liverpoot for many years, and have seen cooks, stewards, and seamen taken handcuffed from the ships by the harbor masters of each municipality, whose dutv it wasand has been to have them taken to prison. And it is done now in every instance of a free colored man going into most ports south of Charleston.”

Such are the wrongs imputed to New Orleans in that letter. Sir, it is not my purpose to enter into an elaborate discussion of the constitutionality of the power claimed by Southern States to legislate over matters so intimately connected as these are with their peace and tranquillity. I shall but; briefly advert to it hereafter Nor will it be necessary that I should say any thing of the abuses, the flagrant abuses, which have rendered indispensable the exertion of that power. If it were, I might content myself with stating that they are of a nature very much like that of which we were reminded the other day, by the recital of the. triumphant parade of runaway slaves which was being exhibited, while we were discussing here these agitating topics, in places where the least regard for the constitution might have ensured more protection to the rights of the masters from whom those slaves had been stolen in open daylight, and indeed in the midst of crowds assembled in convention to witness the spectacle. It is known by whose agency and through what kind of emissaries such slaves are thus taken away from their lawful proprietors; and it was with a view to the correction of the abuses in which those things originated, that the stringent laws so bitterly complained of and denounced were enacted, and in some few instances brought to execution.

The power thus exerted by the Legislatures of two or three of the South 
ern States, is assailed not only on the ground of its unconstitutionality, but on that of the gross cruelty which it is alleged marks in most cases its appli cation; and the clause in the constitution is invoked which says that ” citi zens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.” I do not know but that it might be enough for me to repeat here, what my 4

Page 38 view page image

honorable friend from South Carolina said on a former occasion, in that pecu liar style of his which imparts so much cogency to all his remarks;; and that is, that until it be shown that a citizen of any State has been denied any of the privileges and immunities accorded to citizens in pari conditione of the States where these laws obtain and are enforced, the objection has no point, and falls to the ground. Sir, it seems that the honorable Senator who started this objection might have found in the fact that the constitution was framed for the joint govern ment of States, which, with the single exception of Massachusetts, were all slaveholding States, a sufficient motive to doubt that it could have entered the minds of its framers to take away from those States all power of discrimi nation between the races which composed their population, and to place them on a footing of perfect equality. That Massachusetts herself never dreamed of so construing the provision quoted from the constitution, is most apparent from the fact, that, but a few months after she had accepted the common compact, and when her sages were still fresh with the spirit which had breathed in the councils that framed it, she passed a law which, in my hum ble judgment, bids defiance in point of barbarity to any law that was ever passed on the same subject in any of the slave States. Here is that law: it bears date 1788, and provides that “all negroes, not citizens of any State in the Union, but resident here, are required to depart in two months, or they may be apprehended, whipped, and ordered to depart. The process and punishment may be renewed every two months.” But, sir, is there nothing in the history of the State Governments of this country but the isolated opinion of Massachusetts, as declared in the legisla tive enactment just read, expressive of the construction which has almost invariably been placed on the constitutional provision referred to? Yes, there is. Such must have been the construction which twenty-four States, out of the thirty-one which constitute this Republic, placed upon it, as their constitutions discriminate between colors and races so far as to admit to the higher privileges of citizenship only white male persons. And of the eighteen new States that were admitted into the Union since its constitution was framed, I can find but one (the State of Maine) which has not the dis criminating clause in her fundamental law. All the others presented themselves to Congress for admission, with that clause in their constitution. California herself, whose accession to the United States was so fiercely resisted by Massachusetts, but whose admission into the Union was so warmly supported by her representatives, in this, and in the other end of the Capitol-California came in with this obnoxious clause in her constitution; and for the salvation of my soul I cannot recollect that she, no more than her preceding sisters, was ever opposed on that ground.

Mr. President, I do not wish to trespass too long on the patience of the Senate, nor to arrest, by too lengthy a disquisition on this part of the subject, the vote so anxiously looked for by the friends of the bill upon your table. I desire, however, to place before the Senate, ere I am done with it, another authority, showing that the discrimination between races and colors was not limited to the State constitutions, but has been sanctioned by the wisdom and policy of the whole country. That authority is no less than the law of Congress, approved January 29th, 1795, being “

An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” and which provides that none but ” afree white male person can be admitted to become a citizen of the United States.” I come now to the facts stated in the letter from which the honorable Senator from Massachusetts read on yesterday, and to the legislation under which they are said to have occurred. I am happy that I have it in my power to lay such facts before that Senator as will enable him to correct the 38

Page 39 view page image

39 nmisapprchension under which he evidently labors, and to quiet his philanthropic scruples. I take upon myself to assert that the acts set forth in the letter are unfounded and untrue. Sir, they cannot have occurred under the laws in force in Louisiana; the people of New Orleans are too orderly and well behaved to suffer such gross violations of those laws within that city as the facts stated would imply. I will say, without fear of contradiction, that there is no place in the whole Union where the police is more active in protecting the stranger, and in seeing that justice be done to him. We scorn there all those petty prejudices which unfortunately prevail to such a deplorable extent in other places, and we tender to the stranger who visits us a still surer protection than that of the law, the shield of a warm heart, and of an unaffected hospitality.

Sir, such things as those described in the letter would not be tolerated a single day, nor a single hour. They cannot have happened; they have not happened; and there is not, I am sure, a shipmaster who would endorse them except the one over whose signature they are made to appear. That the Senate may judge of the degree of credit which they deserve, it will suffice to read from the statute book of Louisiana the provisions which regulate the very matters in controversy. By a law of the Territorial Legislature of Louisiana, passed in 1807, which, like all other laws emanating from that body, must be presumed to have received the sanction of Congress its.. -; “That to free negro or mulatto shall emigrate to or settle in this territory, after the passage of this act, under penalty of twenty dollars for every week any such person shall remain in the territory, after the expiration of two weeks; and any free negro or mulatto who shall refuse or neglect to pay the fine imposed by this act, or who shall hot give such security to any judge or justice of the peace of the parish in -“il -they shall be found, for his departure from this territory within two weeks, as -For,ge or justice shall approve of, shall be committed to the Sail of the parish, :‘d”mmay be sold therefrom by the judge of the parish after ten days’ notice of such sale, for a term sufficiemt to pay the fines herein imposed, with the costs and in case that no person should buy such man of color for the space of time above mentioned, he shall then be employed at public work during as many days as he shall have remained in the territory after the two weeks aforesaid.”

Such was the legislation which obtained in Louisiana up to 1830. The statute had remained a dead letter. Hundreds of those whom it was intended it should exclude from that State, had been suffered to remain and to settle there; and it was not until fresh provocations were offered to the slumbering suspicions of the Legislature that they thought of revising the existing laws. Nor did the provisions then enacted to correct an evil which had grown to the most alarming proportions, show any want of tenderness for the interests and convenience of those who had succeeded in introducing themselves into Louisiana in violation of the law of 1807.

They were nearly all allowed a full amnesty; as the new provisions were only made to apply to such as had immigrated since 1825. Here are the provisions of the act of 1830: “See. 1. All free negroes, mulattoes, or other free persons of color, who have come into this State since the first day of January, 1825, in violation of an act of the territory of Orleans, passed on the 14th of April, 1807, entitled An act to prevent the immigration of free negroes and mulattoes into the territory of Orleans, shall and may be arrested and proceeded against by warrant before any judge, justice of the peace, or mayor in this State; and upon due proof of the violation of said act, &c. &c., shall be ordered to depart therefrom within sixty days.” ” See. 2. Any free negro, mulatto, or other free person of colors who, having been ordered to depart from this State, pursuant to the provisions of the first section-of this act, shall, after the period assigned for his departure, be found in any parish in this State, all such free negroes, &c. found within this States in disobedience of such an order of departure and removal therefrom, shall be liable to be prosecuted before any

Page 40 view page image

40 court of competent jurisdiction, or before any judge, justice of the peace, or mayor, and upon due conviction of having disobeyed an order of departure or removal, as provided for in the first section of this act, all such free negroes, mulattoes, and other free persons of color, shall by said court, judge, justice ot the peace, or mayor, be sentenced to one year’s imprisonment at hard labor; and if any free mulatto or other free person of color, ordered to depart from this State pursuant to the provisions of the first section of this act, shall be convicted of a disobedience to such order and sentenced to imprisonment as herein prescribed, all such free negroes, &c. shall be held and bound to depart from this State in thirty days after the expiration of their imprisonment; and on failure to depart within said thirty days, all such free negroes, &c., on due proof of a failure to depart from the State, as herein required, shall by said court, judge, justice of the peace, or mayor, be sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for life.” “Sec. 3. All free negroes, mulattoes, and other free persons of color, who shall ,come iuto this State as seamen, attached to any vessel, or as cook, steward, or in any other capacity, and who shall not depart with said vessel, provided she is destined for an outward voyage, and if not, or is from any circumstance incapable of or not destined for departure, shall not depart within thirty days from this State, all such free negroes, &c., so coming into this State, and not departing therefrom as contemplated in this section, shall incur the penalties of the second section of this act, and be proceeded against as directed by the first and second sections of this act.” “Sec. 4. If among the free persons of color who are subject to depart from this State there are any who hold property, &c., they shall, on proving the same before the acting governor of the State, be allowed from him one year from the promulgation of this act,” &c. &c. And now, Mr.

President, what is there in the provisions which I have just read that cannot bear comparison with the statute passed in 1788 by the Legislature of Massachusetts? Upon what ground could that State complain that the Legislature of Louisiana had transcended her constitutional powers in passing her prohibitory laws? Are the grievances stated in the letter introduced here based on any fact that can be borne out under the provisions of those laws? Where is the least authority confere’” any body to take seamen, cooks, and stewards out of ships lying’, fromn the soil of Louisiana? Why, sir, they are allowed to remat:!”firT as the ship on board of which they came remains in port, if she be bound for an outward voyage; and if not destined for such a voyage, or in any way prevented from performing it, such colored persons as may have been brought on board of them are allowed thirty days before they are required to depart, and then only, and in default of their doing so, can they be subjected to the penalties denounced by the statute. Besides, even when found delinquent, they can only be arrested and proceeded against by warrant. And, in connexion with this, let me remark also that it is no part of the duties of the harbor masters to issue or to execute warrants of arrest; and that, therefore, the statement that hundreds have been taken out of ships by them, handcuffed, and taken into custody, is as unfounded as the other allegations in the same paper are malicious and untrue. I deny them all. I deny them most emphatically. The letter contains no reliable statement; for its author stands convicted of unmitigated falsehood, as far as the facts by him set forth are made to rest on the actual legislation of Louisiana, and on the manner in which it is enforced in New Orleans. It has also been said, upon the authority of I know not what certificate, that twelve hundred colored seamen were taken out annually from ships arriving at the port of New Orleans and thrown into prison. May I not be permitted to cast a glance over that certificate? Mr. WINTHROP. I said nothing about any certificate to that effect. I merely said that a statement of that sort had been made to me some years ago, which I had found among my files. It was made to me by the keeper of a “Colored Seamen’s Home” in New York, who seemed to be very intelligent on the subject, and stated doubtless that which he thought to be rue. i

Page 41 view page image

41 Mr. SOULE. And is that the source whence the honorable Senator would expect to find truth, and which he disdains not to cover with the folds of his Senatorial mantle? There is not a word of truth in these statements -not a word. I pronounce them absolute untruths. The honorable Sena tor must now perceive how grossly he has been deceived; and, while I ex onerate him fully from all intent to propagate these abject calumnies, know ing them to be such, he will thank me, I am sure, for redressing his judg ment upon them, and for relieving his sympathies from the agony which they seem to have suffered on their account. Sir, I had not intended to dwell so long on this most unwelcome topic of debate, and I will end what I have to say by expressing my deep regret that it has at all been introduced here. That Massachusetts should revive at this day, under the circumstances that surround us, what constitutional scruples she may have entertained with respect to the matters alluded to, after she had suffered them to slumber all the time while seventeen new States were coming into the Union with that most obnoxious discrimination, and when she might so appropriately have indulged them in procuring the repeal of such of her own laws as were blotted with it, betrays, I am afraid, that there are yet latent and sore energies in the spirit of hostility so long entertained against the South by certain portions of the North, which no hecatomb of our rights would moderate, nor even the passage of the so-call ed peace measures entirely consume and exhaust. Mr. BERRIEN. Mr. President, in consequence of a statement made yesterday, by the Senator from Massachusetts, I find myself under the ne cessity of offering a brief explanation to the Senate. That statement relates to the laws of certain Southern States, to which he has referred. After having denounced the proceedings under these laws as abuses, he proceed ed to speak of certain evidence in his possession of the facts stated in the papers to which he referred. Among this evidence, the Senator either pro duced or referred to a certificate given by a keeper of a house for colored seamen, or colored persons, affirming, if mny recollection is right as to num bers, that there were annually imprisoned in New Orleans twelve hundred colored seamen. The Senator will correct me if I mistake. Mr. WINTHROP. I believe that was the estimate, Mr. BERRIEN. In Charleston, there were said to be five hundred im prisoned annually; in Savannah, three hundred; and in Mobile a number which I do not recollect. Now, sir, that statement, presented to the Senate of the United States in the discussion of the question which is now com manding universal attention, is so presented by the Senator from Massachu setts, without any disavowal of the authority, or question as to the credit, of the individual making the statement, and with the implied affirmance of that authority and credit by the act of presentation. For, sir, unless the,Sena tor from Massachusetts gave credit to the statement, it could not be presumed that he would have offered it to the consideration of the Senate of the Unit ed States, in the discussion of a question so grave as this. I am required, then, on the part of that people-my constituency-to meet the statement presented by a Senator in his place, and which goes into circulation through out the United States under the implied sanction of that Senator. This is to me a very unpleasant task. I have pleasure in vindicating my constitu ents from any imputation so false, foul, and calumnious as this is, but it gives me pain to speak as I am compelled to speak of the exhibition of such a statement in the Senate of the United States. I have to say, then, sir, that this statement, in all its particulars, is false, and that there is no law existing in the State of Georgia, under which such proceedings could have taken place. I affirmed this fact at the moment; but I have in the interval

Page 42 view page image

42 made an abstract of the laws of the State on this subject, for the purpose of showing, by their provisions, the utter impossibility that such a state of facts could have existed. I make this explanation at the disadvantage which necessarily attends such a procedure as that adopted by the Senator from ,Massachusetts. The statement which was made yesterday is circulated throughout the Union. The people of the city of Savannah-a city comparatively small in dimensions and population-are represented as annually imprisoning three hundred colored persons in abuse of their rights, and without charge of any offence committed by them. Now, sir, it is only necessary to look to an abstract of the laws of the State of Georgia upon this subject; for the purpose of making it entirely apparent how unfounded is this accusation. I have here an abstract of the laws: RESTRICTIONS ON COLORED SEAMEN AND OTHERS. 1. Not permitted to leave the vessel from the hours of six o’clock in the evening until five o’clock the succeeding morning. The duty of the captain to report a particular description of the seamen and their names. 2. Captain required to give bond with sureties for the maintenance of the seamen, for retaining him on board of his vessel, and for carrying him away when his vessel departs. 3.

Duty of captain to report within twenty-four hours after his arrival to the mayor, &c. any colored persons, and to give this bond under the penalty of one hundred dollars for each colored person omitted. 4. Vessels coming from any port in any other State or foreign country, having on board any free negro or person of color as a steward, mariner, or in any other capacity, or as a passenger, liable to quarantine; and negroes or persons of color residing on shore forbidden to-have communication with them. 5. Such persons, going on shore, liable to be arrested by the warrant of the mayor, intendarnt, or any judge or justice of any superior or inferior court, and committed to prison until the vessel is departing, or until otherwise discharged by law. 6. Negroes or persons of color communicating with those on board liable to arrest, land on conviction to corporal punishment, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes. 7. Captain to take away such negro so brought in, and pay the expenses of his detention when the vessel is ready to depart, and, failing to do so, shall be liable on conviction to a penalty of five hundred dollars, and not exceeeing three months’ imprisonment. 8. If the captain refuses or neglects, and the negro or person of color does not depart from the State within ten days, liable on conviction to corporal punishment, not ex  ceeding thirty-nine lashes.

9. All negroes or persons of color arriving in Georgia, and all other persons, exempted from the operation of the act, who arrive in consequence of shipwreck, stress of weather, or other unavoidable accident, unless they fail to comply with the provisions of the act within one month. The selling of free persons of color as slaves is expressly forbidden by law in ‘Georgia. You will perceive, on hearing this abstract of the laws of Georgia, that there is no inhibition on the arrival of free colored persons-nothing which forbids their going on shore to perform their daily work; but that they are only inhibited from leaving their vessels at night. You will perceive that the law directs its penal provisions to the captain who takes in the seaman, and not to the seaman himself; and that there is no provision for the renewal of punishment, from month to month, or from two months to two months, as in Massachusetts, by the law read by the Senator from Louisiana. These, sir, are the provisions of the law of Georgia. In the exercise of that power which they possess to make such police regulations as are necessary for their safety, and looking to the peculiar institution which exists among them, they have passed these acts.

The force and operation of the penal provisions, the Senate will perceive, are made chiefly to apply to the ,captain bringing in the negroes, and not to the negroes or colored persons thlemselves. They are permitted to come in, and are allowed to go ashore ii

Page 43 view page image

43 during the ordinary working hours, and are only prohibited from landing during the hours of the night, when their intercourse with our slaves might be abused to purposes inconsistent with our safety. Let me add-for I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate-that the selling of free persons of color as slaves, under any circumstances, is expressly forbidden by the law of Georgia. And now, sir, upon this statement, I trust the American people, before whom this accusation has gone, will at least acquit my constituents of the obnoxious and unfounded charge. Mr.

WINTHROP. I had not intended to say another word this mnorn ing in regard to this vexed and exciting question; but the course of the Senator from Georgia has compelled me to do so. Sir, if I understood an imputation which was made in the opening remarks of that Senator, it was as ungenerous as it was unjust. If I understood that imputation, sir, it was as unworthy of him, and of the Senate chamber, as it was of myself. The PRESIDENT. The Senator must not make such remarks. The Chair cannot permit it. Mr. WINTHROP. And I may add, sir, that that imputation, if I understood it correctly, was in direct contradiction to the statement which that Senator himself made yesterday on the floor of the Senate, and for which he is on record in the newspapers of this morning. I understood the Senator to say just now that I had introduced here a statement upon the subject of the imprisonment of free negroes in the port of Savannah; and that, not having intimated that I did not credit that statement, or did not vouch for its accuracy, I had made it my own statement; and that it was thus the statement of an American Senator and had gone before the American people under that authority. And it was with this utterly unfounded preface that he proceeded to pronounce that statement false.

Why, sir, I am fortunate in having evidence upon this subject. The Senator from Georgia interrupted me yesterday for explanation, soon after I introduced this topic; and what was his remark? ” I am very glad (said he) to hear that the Senator from Massachusetts did not voucl for the truth of that statement.” That was his own expression. It is too late for the Senator to attempt to get behind it. He is on record for the very words; and I leave, therefore, any imputation upon myself. which might otherwise have resulted from his language to-day, as it deserves to be left, to return where it came from. Sir, every body knows how that statement was introduced. There was no mistake-there could have been no unintentional mistake in regard to it. I said that it was a statement which had been furnished me in relation to this subject some seven or eight years ago. I intimated at the instant I introduced it that it might be as extravagant as it appeared to be on its faceI stated expressly that I did not vouch for it in any degree; that I did not “vouch for it at all.” I said this, not in answer to any question put to me by the Senator, or by any body else; but as an original, unprompted expression of my own. But I said, also, that if one person in the United States believed that such enormities were practiced or perpetrated to stich an extent, it was a sufficient reason for investigating the circumstances of the case, and bringing it before some responsible judicial tribunal. The Senator forgets himself when he attempts to make me in the slightest degree responsible for any thing which that statement contained. He must deny his own declaration of yesterday, or he must acknowledge the wrong he has done me to-day. There is no alternative. But, sir, if evidence upon this subject is so emphatically demanded if we are called upon to substantiate, by respectable witnesses, the facts which have been alleged in relation to this case, I desire to state the authority upon which I have acted upon this question, since I have had any connex

Page 44 view page image

44 ion with it in either branch of Congress. Here, sir, is the original metno rial, which is my letter of instructions on this subject. Let me read it, for the special edification of the Senator from Georgia: To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Con gress assembled: Your petitioners, citizens of the United States, and some of them owners and masters of vessels, respectfully represent: That on board of that large number of vessels accustomed to touch at the ports of Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, and New Orleans, it is frequently necessary to employ free persons of color; And whereas it frequently happens that such crews are taken from the vessels, thrown into prison, and there detained at their own expense, greatly to the prejudice aud detriment of their interest, and of the commerce of these States; - They pray your honorable body to grant them relief, and render effectual in their behalf the privileges of citizenship secured by the constitution of the United States; And, as in duty bound, will ever pray. And now, sir, by whom was this memorial signed? The Senator from Georgia, and other Senators here, will bear witness to the character of some of the names which I shall proceed to read: Benja Rich, Saintel Appleton, Josiah\,radlee, Benjam’/Bangs, WilliabfAppleton, ThomLamb, J. Ingersoll B6bNitch, Robert (WShaw, Thomas motley, Willia turgis, James KVMills, and Thomas fH.t-Perkins. Here, sir, are twelve names which will serve as a specimen of the mercantile character and standing which this memorial represens. William Prescott, Charles on, Wm. lyinot, Franklin Dexter, Charlts P.-:C(rtis, Benjamin Rand, Sidneyartlett, W. H. Gardiner, George Morey, John C. Gray, Charles G oring, and Benjami>k~R. Curtis. These, sir, will furnish a sample of the judicial and legal ability by which it is endorsed. Abbott Lawrence, our present Minister to England; Henry Lee, the South Carolina candidate for the Vice Presidency in l132; WilliarH.

Prescott, the author of Ferdinand and Isabella, whose name may stand alone as the representative of American literature: These, Mr. President, are some of the names upon which I rest my intervention on this subject. It is not, sir, by any insignificant colored person, if he be insignificant;-it is not by any humble shipmaster of Boston, if he be humble;-that these facts have been brought forward, and an investigation demanded. It is by more than one hundred and fifty citizens of Massachusetts, many of whom are deeply interested in commerce and navigation; others of whom are eminently distinguished in legal, scientific, and literary pursuits; and who, taken together, represent as much of intelligence, virtue and patriotism, as can be found in the same number of persons in any part of the Union. Sir, I protest against this attempt to create a false clamor on this subject, by making issue upon little items of evidence, or little scraps of statement, which may have been adduced here incidentally, with no purpose to vouch for the accuracy of their details, but only with the object of showing distinctly to the Senate, and to the country, that there is believed to be an enormous abuse upon this subject, which demands investigation. Who has the face to deny that there is such an abuse? Why, sir, upon this question there are some facts which cannot be disputed. It is a fact, in the first place, that these odious laws exist. The statute-books are the evidence of that fact. And if those of the State of Louisiana or of Georgia do not entirely conform to the views which have been given of them, no man denies that the laws of South Carolina on this subject are precisely what they have already been -represented to be.

Page 45 view page image

45 In the second place, sir, it is a fact that these laws are executed. No man denies that they are executed, both upon our own seamen, and upon foreign seamen. We know it by unimpeachable records, upon one of which the Senator from Georgia has himself pronounced an official opinion. We know it by the records of other countries as well as our own. Why, sir, if I mistake not, this question has been brought before the Parliament of Great Britain within a few months past. I believe that at the very last session of Parliament, the subject was most significantly noticed in the House of Commons, as having been freshly brought to the attention of the Secretary of State in this country by the British Minister, owing to the recent seizure of more than one British sailor. These outrages and abuses have been perpetrated upon British as well as upon American vessels. In the third place, sir, it is a fact that these laws have been pronounced unconstitutional by the highest judicial authority. We know that Mr.

Justice Johnson, himself a citizen of South Carolina, gave an elaborate opinion that these laws were contrary to the constitution of the United States. His opinion, to that effect, is in the very volume before me,*
where any one may see it. And lastly, sir, it is a fact, that, if we have been obliged to rely upon evidence gleaned here and there from the keeper of a colored seamen’s home, or from the captain of a Massachusetts merchant ship, it is because we have been refused the opportunity of obtaining authentic testimony through the proper and rightful channels. We know, and the Senator knows, that we attempted in the first instance, to employ attorneys and lawyers in the Southern States, for the purpose of investigating this question, and bringing it to a deciion before their own judicial tribunals, and that when we had failed in that attempt, agents of our own-most respectable and eminent * The opinion of Mr. Justice JOHr soN
is too long for insertion in this debate. But the following communication, which-is among the printed documents of Congress, will indicate its character: Judge Johnson to Mr. Adams. CHARLESTON, July 3, 1824. SiR: I know not from whom the Government expects communications such as the present, but I am daily made sensible that the eyes of the community are turned most particularly to the Judges of the Supreme Court for protection of their constitutional rights, while I feel myself destitute of the power necessary to realize that expectation. Hence, although obliged to look on and see the constitution of the United States trampled on by a set of men who, I sincerely believe, are as much influenced by the pleasure of bringing its functionaries into contempt, by exposing their impotence, as by any other consideration whatever, I feel it my duty to call the attention of the President to the subject, as one which may not be unworthy of on official remonstrance to the Executive of the State. In the envelope which encloses this, I have taken the liberty to enclose three docu ments. The first is an act of the Legislature of this State, passed at their last session, from which you will perceive how very far your expectations are from being realized, as you expressed them to Mr.

Canning, in your letter of’June 17th, 1823. The second is a paragraph from the Charleston Mercury of the 23d ult., from which it will be seen how pointedly the South Carolina Association, as it is called, are pressing the execu tion of that law. And the third is an article from the Charleston Courier of the 29th, which contains a report of the case of Amos Daley, from which it appears that he was a citizen of Rhode Island, and an articled seaman on board of an American vessel. The ground of defence taken for him will also appear, and, in the disregard of them, the principles acted upon by the people who are pressing these measures. This man has come off with twelve lashes, because “he could not help himself in returning to this port;” but you will see from the law, that this summary court pos sesses the power of inflicting, in the most summary manner, twelve thousand lashes, should they think proper. I am wholly destitute of the power of arresting those measures. Both the writs of habeas corpus and injunction I am precluded from using, because the cases assume the form of State prosecutions; and if I could issue them, I have nobody to call upon, since

Page 46 view page image

46 persons-were employed, who were repulsed from your doors and turned away with indignity. Sir, these are facts which no man can deny. And neither abuse nor imputation heaped unjustly upon a Senator who may attempt to array them before the country, nor any miserable quibbling upon a statement which may have been brought here as showing the opinions, and estimates which others may have formed upon the subject; neither the one nor the other can do away with these notorious and well authenticated facts. You cannot rail them out of existence. They stand upon the records of the country; and there they will stand, a perpetual reproach and rebuke to those who insist that this question shall not be brought before a responsible judicial tribunal, and shall not be tried in the ordinary constitutional manner. MR. BERRIEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts, by what I would charitably hope is a misapprehension, has misrepresented the remarks which I made, so far as that Senator is concerned, and has then, by an illogical conclusion, endeavored to escape from the implied censure which he feels to be the necessary result of those remarks. Sir, I have said to-day what I said yesterday, that I inquired from the Senator, at the moment, whether he vouched for the truth of the accusation contained in his certificate, and that he answered that he did not. There is, therefore, no discordance between my remarks of yesterday and those of this morning. The record is consistent. The act of declining to vouch for the truth of a stafementich a Senator presents in this chamber is one thing; that of presenting it, without-anyy-pression of belief or disbelief asta-itg  edt until specifically interrogated upon the questiwii-eter he did vouch for it, the District Attorney is himself a member of the association; and they have, further, the countenance of five other officers of the United States in their measures. To this fact I attribute much of the confidence with which these measures are prosecuted.

In fact, the law itself was passed under the influence of a memorial from the association, who, I am informed, actually had it drawn up here, in pursuance of their own deliberations, in order to be submitted to the Legislature. It is emphatically their law. The only resource of the masters for having their men taken from them-or of the men -and the only mode of bringing up the subject to the Supreme Court, is by an action for damages. But without friends, without funds, and without time, mariners cannot resort to suits at law. I must agaia apologize for troubling you with this communication; and there are many private considerations that would have deterred me from making it. But I am perfectly sure that I am the only public functionary here by whom it would have been made. The society has the countenance and sup)port of some men who cannot openly join it; and although 1 am confident there is a decided majority against them, yet there are many wealthy and distinguished men in it, and some whose rank in life ought, in my opinion, to have prevented them from taking part with it. A copy of Mr. Poinsett’s letter to you on this subject has been shown among his friends here, and I have perused it. At the same time that I am well convinced Mr. Poinsett believed all that he thbre urges in excuse of the measure, yet I am well persuaded that it is in the power of no one to establish the facts there stated. Indeed,! do not hesitate to express the opinion that the whole of the alarm of 1822
wasfounded in causes that were infinitely exaggerated. A few timid and precipitate men managed to disseminate their fears and their feelings, and you know that popular panics spread with the expansive force of vapor. The rest of the State, I am well persuaded, takes no interest in these measures, but rather yields them to the fears of the city representation, where their chief operation is felt, than adopts them from an opinion of their necessity or utility. With very great personal and official consideration, I have the honor to subscribe myself, sir, Your very humble servant, Hon. JoHN QuiNcy ADAMS, i Secretary of the State of the United States. .I ;i WILLIAM JOHNSON,

Page 47 view page image

47 is another, and very different thing. No Senator will fail to perceive the distinction. Now, sir, I would assert, whatever censure may be implied in the declaration that the presentment by a Senator in his place of a statement of alleged facts, unaccompanied by any expression of his, belief or disbelief in the truth of such statement, implies that he offers it as one which is, in his judgment, entitled to credit, upon the plain and simple principle that the Senator can be presumed to present to the consideration of the Senate that which he himself thinks unworthy of belief. In that position the’honorable Senator stood when I made the inquiry whether he would vouch for the truth of the facts asserted. He had presented the statement as appropriate to the subject under discussion; and that act, unaccompanied by any disavowal, was an affirmance-of its title to credit. Looking to this course of proceeding on the part of the honorable Senator, and to the false and unfounded statement which he has presented to the Senate, and speaking as a citizen of Georgia -one of that people who are thus falsely accused-I re-affirm what I said yesterday, and now declare, that no tittle of that censure can be withdrawn or removed; nor can the conviction which must force itself upon the minds of those who hear me, be obliterated by any observations which have fallen from the Senator from Massachusetts this morning. Sir, I have not been quibbling about evidence; I have not been commenting or making strictures upon scraps of testimony, collected by those who are disposed to call into question the conduct of the Southern States upon this subject. That is the appropriate office of those who collect such scraps, and rely on them. I have met the charge of the honorable Senator by distinct, unanswerable evidence, which renders it impossible that it can be true-by showing that the laws of the State of Georgia give no such authority as that which has been charged to have been exercised, and that no such proceedings as those which are alleged could have occurred under them. Now, sir, how is this met by the evidence which the Senator has produced this morning, supported by a long roll of respectable names? Far be it from me, sir, to raise a question of respectability with reference to any one of the gentlemen to whom the Senator has referred. But what do they state, and what are their means of information? Let us see: “On board of that large number of vessels accustomed to touch at Charleston, f Mobile, Savannah, and New Orleans, it is frequently necessary to employ free per sons of color; and whereas it frequently happens that such persons are taken from the vessels and thrown into prison, and there detained at their own expense,” &c. Now, I beg to inquire how any of those respectable gentlemen who have put their names to this paper, thus vouching for the truth of its declaration, could have come to the knowledge of the facts which it asserts. They are not persons engaged in the navigation of these ships, so that in that capacity they could have personal knowledge of these facts. No, sir; the allegation is unquestionably founded on information which they derived from others; and the credit which is due to that memorial does not, therefore, depend at all upon the character of the gentlemen whose names have been read by the honorable Senator, but upon that of those from whom they obtained their information. I say nothing of the respectability of the gentlemen whose names have been read; some of them are known to me. All of them, I doubt not, are respectable; but a memorial to Congress is no evidence of the facts which it asserts. Such a memorial is subscribed and presented with a knowledge that before any action is had by Congress upon the subject the facts which it alleges must be inquired into and proved. Those who subscribe the paper should certainly believe what they allege, and those who present and urge it should be prepared to prove what it asserts; but upon

Page 48 view page image

48 the paper itself, a mere petition or memorial to Congress, I maintain that there is no respectability of character, and no number of names of men of any standing, which can impart to it verity, when it obviously relates to facts of which they could have no personal knowledge. As to Georgia, sir, the evidence which I have adduced manifestly withdraws her from the operation of this statement and these denunciations. And, now, Mr. President, as to the supposed difficulty of obtaining evidence of the abuses which are alleged to have been committed, 1 understanid that this allegation is confined to certain procedings which have taken place in the State of South Carolina. I do not apprehend that any Senator will venture to assert here in his place that there are any facts authorizing such a complaint in relation to the State of Georgia-that any one has ever been refused access to the records for the purpose of obtaining information of any judicial proceedings, or has ever been prevented from testing the constitu tionality of any act upon her statute-book, through the medium of the courts of justice. It would be initrusive for mle to enter into any vindication of the act of South Carolina, or of the conduct of her judicial tribunals, and I ab stain from doing so; but, sir, I cannot forbear at a moment like this to add, that if the feeling which is manifested upon this occasion, and which has been so frequently manifested of late by Senators on this floor, is a true in dication of the feelings of the people of the States from which those Sena tors come, they are calculated, (I trust they are not so intended,) but they are certainly and inevitably calculated to produce and to fasten a conviction on the Southern mind, that we are unfit associates for each other. I do not attempt to say whether the merit or demerit which thus unfits us for associ ation belongs to the South or the North; but if this incessant war is to be kept up dle die in diem; if it is to be arrayed against our institutions; if we are within this hall’and elsewhere to be constantly denounced, and assailed by remarks calculated to wound and irritate the feelings of slaveholders; if we are to be continually met by charges which are utterly false, and which disappear at the touch, I do not hesitate to repeat that you are forcing upon us the conviction, which we shall not always be able to resist, that we cannot much longer be considered fit associates for the people of the non-slave holding States.

Mr. WINTHROP. Mr. President, I have already sufficiently answered and repelled the unfounded imputations of the Senator from Georgia. One word more as to his argument. The Senator from Georgia has not only forgotten what occurred here yesterday, but he has quite lost sight of the peculiar character of the question before us. He tells us that this perpetual war upon Southern institutions is about to dissolve the Union. Heaven for bid, Mr. President, that any thing should dissolve this Union 1 But, sir, let the Senator remember that the war which is the subject of this controversy, is a war upon our institutions and not upon his. It is the right of seizing our freemen, and not the right of interfering with his slaves, which is at stake upon this issue. You propose to insert into the bill before us a power to expel all free colored persons from the District of Columbia, on pain of being imprisoned at labor without limit. Your Southern laws authorize the seizure and imprisonment of our free colored sailors. Is it, then, a war upon Southern institutions which is now the subject of controversy? Or is it not rather a flagrant war upon Northern institutions and upon Sailors’ Rights, and a war of the Senator’s own waging? In the same manner, sir, the Senator from Georgia, with less than his usual care in examining ques tions of evidence, has omitted, in reading this memorial, to take any notice of the caption. It may have been an undesigned, but it was by no means an unimportant omission. HJe intimated that this memorial was worth noth ing as a matter of testimony, because it contained only the names of people li

Page 49 view page image

who knewv nothing personally upon this question. I must read the caption of the memorial once more: “Your petitioners, citizens of the United States, and some of them owners and masters of vessels.” Sir, these mas ters of vessels speak that which they know. They testify that which they have seen - that Which they have witnessed or experienced in their own persons and on board their own vessels. The Senator must admit, thise fore, that I was right in speaking of this memorial as evidence upon the question under conisideration. And it is such evidence, sir, as he will in vain attempt to rebut, and as he will not venture to treat with contempt.

Mr. BERRIEN. I did not overlook the caption of that memorial; but the Senator from Massachusetts sought to give credence to that memnorial as evidence, by referring to the names, of known respectability, affixed to it. The argument I addressed to the Senate was that these persons, so re ferred to for that purpose, must have derived their information from others, and could, therefore, give no credit to the statement. The honorable Senator says, in reply to my remark that, this incessant war upon our institutions will lead us to a state of feeling which will con vince us that we are unfit associates for each other, that this is not a war upon Southern institutions, but upon the institutions of the North,‘upon the question whether northern freemen may be imprisoned in southern ports. In one sense, this is not a war upon southern institutions. It is not a ques tion whether, by the operation of these laws, you shall diminish or destroy the value of southern property. No, sir, it is a war upon southern safety. It is not a war upon our particular institutions; but it is a war upon our personal safety. The safety of our wives and children is endangered by these northern emissaries coming to those people who are the subjects of our particular institutions; and though I trust, with the Senator from Massachusetts, that nothing may occur to dissolve this Union, yet I do not hesitate to tell him that there is not, in my belief, a Southern State, in the true sense of that term, which, if divested of the right to pass those police laws which they deem essential to their safety, to the security of their wives and children, to their protection from servile insurrection by the allowance of these emissaries from the North these colored emissaries from the North - to intermingle with that population, if convinced that they are deprived by their constitutional obligations of the right to pass these laws, which are indispensable to their safety, there is not a southern State which would not be brought to a conclusion froml which every feeling of my heart revolts. Mr. EWING. I do not myself give any considerable weight to the let ters which are vouched by men that are said to be respectable. They amount to little more than a mere loose statement of the opinions of in dividuials, very often founded on no facts whatever, or very slight facts.

I should have given very little weight to the letter introduced by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, even if it had called forth no comment and no contradiction. But at the same time I do not think thie Senator liable to any reproach or harsh animadversion for introducing a letter into the Senate, especially if he takes care to say that he does not vouch for the correctness of the information. Why, sir, the Senator from Massachusetts had a high precedent for this. It is a very few days, or perhaps a few weeks, since in debate the honorable Senator from Georgia introduced a letter from Califor nia, written by a respectable gentleman to another respectable gentleman, the names of neither of whom that honorable Senator gave, in which the writer stated that the past administration, or the agents of the past adminis tration, had engaged in seducing or driving the people of California to in troduce a certain provision in their constitution. The Senator from GeOrgia did not vouch for that statement at all. He argued from it. He reasoned 5

Page 50 view page image

50 from it as if he believed it to be true. And when I contradicted the state ment he still reasoned from it. His printed speech will show that he reasoned from it. He published his speech upon it, as if he believed it to be true. And it was a statement as I now say, and as I then said, though not in quite as distinct terms, which was, every word of it, false; every syllable of it false; without a syllable of truth in it - a mere figment.

Yet I never made any imputation upon that honorable Senator for reading it here. Not at all. Certainly he stands in precisely the situation of the Senator from Massachusetts, whom he animadverts upon so harshly for bringing in this letter, the name of the writer of which he gave. Mr.

BERRIEN. ” The Senator is personal. This requires some reply. It is the lamest and most impotent attempt at an analogy that ever was presented to the consideration of a body of intelligent-men. I introduced a letter. I was not called upon for the name of the writer. I said it was a letter addressed by a respectable citizen of Baltimore formerly to a member of this Senate, who would vouch for his respectability. Now, sir, is there any analogy between these two cases? I did believe, upon the testimony which I had received, that that letter was entitled to credit; and I argued from it as so entitled. But with respect to the statement which the Senator from Ohio contests, it is a statement of a fact which bould not have been within the knowledge of the Senator from Ohio, but of which that writer of that letter might have had personal knowledge. Consequently, notwithstanding the contradiction of the Senator from Ohio, that letter remains as evidence, with the credit of a letter vouched for in the manner I have stated. I take the responsibility of avowing my belief in the truths stated in that letter. I did so at the time; I do so now. I did it upon the authority to which I have referred, and which I stated to the Senate. Whenever any Senator shall present a letter or other paper, giving a reference to the authority upon which he relies for giving credence to it, then he will be in the condition in which I was when I presented the letter to which the Senator from Ohio alludes, not in that of the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. EWING. One other word Mr. President, with respect to that letter. If my memory serves me, it stands precisely in the same situation with this memorial, which the honorable Senator says is entitled to no weight whatever. The writer, if my memory serves me rightly, was not in California at the time the constitution was formed. I may be incorrect in that, but it is my impression. The writer did not see it; he knows nothing of it at all. The only person representing the government, as is well known to the Senator fromi Georgia, was a distinguished gentleman from his own State; and he has denied, in the most express terms, in a letter published by himself, that he ever said a single word upon that subject with such a view; and that denial was published before the Senator read that letter. Mr. BERRIEN. That it was so published, I presume. I have not seen it. I take it upon the statement of the Senator from Ohio. The information I have was stated in the debates of the convention of California,- made of course by a member of that body, of a conversation Mr. EWING, (in his seat.) Not at all with respect to that matter. Mr.

BERRIEN, (continuing.) Of a conversation of that agent, in which he said, “For God’s sake, leave us no territory to legislate upon in Congress.” The debate shows that this request was made in order to relieve Congress from the necessity of legislating upon the subject of slavery-that it unquestionably had reference to that, and nothing else. Mr. EWING. That was not at all the subject of controversy between us. I said nothing about that. Mr. BUTLER. I certainly, sir, have no very angry feelings about this controversy; but the Senate will bear mne witness that this is the fifth time 8

Page 51 view page image

51 that this law of South Carolina has been introduced by Senators from Massachusetts, with a view to pronounce their censures and their condemnation of it, upon the ground that it was inhuman, and treating this black race in a way not contemplated by the constitution, and repugnant to the sentiment of that extremely sentimental people. I did not introduce this subject; but I rise to say upon this question, that if Massachusetts or the other States north of the Potomac suppose that, by any legislation here, they can compel, under duress of law, or induce South Carolina to give up this right of making police regulations for this class of persons, they are vastly mistaken, for South Carolina will never give it up.

Moreover, sir,- I do not think that these complaints of the way in which these beings are regarded comes with a very good grace fromn Massachusetts. Why, how does one of their reverend, grave writers, Dr.

Belknap, say that the negro children are regarded there? [Laughter.] He says; “Negro children were reckoned as an incumbrance in a family; and when weaned were given away like puppies. [Laughter.] They have been publicly advertised in the newspapers,‘to be given away.”’ [Great Laughter.] Mr. WINTHROP. How many years ago was that? Mr. BUTLER. It was in 1781, I believe. Mr. WINTHROP. Oh! Mr. BUTLER. I will say to the Senator from Massachusetts that I have a very great respect for his ancestors. Yet, though I have a great respect for that Senator himself also, I do not believe he is any better or wiser than his ancestor who landed on Plymouth Rock. [Laughter.] Mr. WINTHROP. I wish I was half as good. But the Senator is slightly mistaken as to dates. My ancestor did not land at Plymouth rock at all; he came over ten years afterwards, to Salem. Mr. BUTLER. Well, I was only showing you how your ancestors re garded these creatures. With regard to the witness whom the Senator from Massachusetts has produced here-this man Ranlett-I had a conversation with a gentleman coming from the Navy Yard this morning, and he said he had no doubt that if there was any truth in the story, this man Ran lett went into Charleston with the negroes for salvage, and finding if he took the negroes out, they would have to divide it, he left them there, and took it all to himself. [Laughter.] Mr. WINTHROP. And I have conversed to-day with two gentlemen who say that they know Captain Ranlett, and they testify that he is a cap tain of high respectability and intelligence. One of them says that he now owns his own ship, and is just about to sail on a voyage on his own behalf. I only hope he will not have gone before he has an opportunity of explaining this matter for himself. Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts. I will detain the Senate but a few mo ments with what I have to say. I regret that the debate which has sprung up, collaterally with the the subject of this bill, has, in some parts of it, at least, been characterized with unnecessary harshness towards my colleague. I must say that I do not think it an unreasonable proposition on the part of Massachusetts to ask for the judicial decision of a question of constitutional right. I think, on the contrary, it is what cannot, in any just exercise of power, be denied. This right is not derived, as some Senators seem to sup pose, fromn anything contained in any State constitution. It is secured-if secured at all to the party-by the Constitution of the United States, and \by that instrument alone. If it has, no foundation there, it has none any \where. And it is the trial of that right by the tribunal prescribed by law Which the State of Massachusetts has sought, and nothing more. It follows a matter of course, that that right is in no way dependent upon State

Page 52 view page image

52 constitutions. Itris in no way, dependent upon the emigration. laws of Lou-: isiana, which have been referred to. It is in no way dependent upon any;, police regulations which may exist anywhere. But these police laws, if they interfere with the Constitution of the United. States, and deprive us of any right therein secured, are unlawful. This is the. point to be’settled, and it is surprising that there should be any opposition to it., Sir, I have heard with some astonishment the question of fact in this matter brought into doubt here. There can be no question whatever about it. The State of Massachusetts did not pr6ceed in this matter without evidence before her to satisfy her upon that point She had, without, doubt, evidence which satisfied her Legislature, and the other branches of her, governments that complaints of this description were well founded and she took measures accordingly. Well, sir, she sent an agent to Charleston.

The people of Carolina are an honorable and high-minded people, and what did they do? Every one knows that they did not question the facts. The Senator from South Carolina himself does not deny them. Our agent laid before the Governor of South Carolina the purport of his mission. The Governor did not deny the existence of such a law. He did not deny or question the facts alleged. He did not deny that there was a, prison there for the purpose, and that these colored persons were confined in it. But, treating the state ment as well founded, he laid the whole subject before the Legislature of the State, alleging it was an attempt to interfere with the laws of the State, and the Legislature took steps to prevent the decision of this question; by the judicial tribunals. Well, sir, if there had been no foundation for these complaints, as some gentlemen seemt to suppose, there might have been a very plain answer. given. That agent, might have been-told’you have come here upon a complaint that has no foundation; you have no real cause for legal or any other controversy, as these things which you allege as a grievance never take place; you may go into court if you can find a case to found a complaint upon.” Sir, they took no such course as that, but on the contrary they opposed obstacles which proved insuperable to legal process. But I need not repeat these facts. The, Senator fromr South Carolina (Mr. Butler) admits, if I understand him, that they are to an extent true, though not to so great an extent as some suppose. The same thing is substantially true of Louisiana.

The honorable Senator from that State (Mr. Soule6) only argues from laws which he adduces that it is impos sible that these things should take place. If, however, these practices do exist, his argument would prove that they are unsupported by law, which would only make them the more objectionable. Mr SOULE. I deny most positively that they can or do take place. Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts. I can see that the Senator draws a con elusion, which conclusion is tantamount to a denial; but then he must admit that, under the laws which he has read, a person of this description, after he has been in the State thirty days, is subject to this confinement. Now, I will not enter into any controversy with.the Senator fromn Louisiana, as I have no time to look into the laws of that State, but I will take an opportu nity to do it~ and I think I can show that. in the cases where these individ uals have been imprisoned in Louisiana it has been done under some law there. At. least I amni unwilling to believe otherwise. That it has been done, in Louisiana admits, in my opinion, of no doubt. There are ample proofs of it, according to my information, and I have no doubt it can be obtained. Well, sir, the same thing happened in Louisiana as in South Carolina. The Governor of Louisiana did not. say to the gentleman who went from Massachusetts, “this is an. unfounded complaint; it is untrue in itself; you have no cause to com…e here. to redress imaginary wrongs; your citizens have not been imprisoned” That would have been a full and I li

Page 53 view page image

53 complete answer; but no such answer was made. On the contrary, the subject was communicated to the Legislature for their consideration. I do not mean to impute any intentional misstatement or error to the Senator from Louisiana, but I think it will turn out that there is some law or authority which has beetn overlooked, or some existing practice or regulation; for that seamen sailing from the North have been seized and imprisoned at New Orleans admits of no doubt whatever, unless we have all been misled by evidence which we felt authorized to credit. However, Mr.

President, I will dismiss the subject for I am anxious not to detain the Senate in regard to it, since it was fully discussed on a former day. And now, sir, I wish to add a few words in relation to the amendment proposed by the Senator from New York, (Mr. Seward.) This amendment is presented at a moment and under circumstances that I regret. I am sorry that the Senator from New York thought it to be his duty to ask the attention of the Senate to the subject in this connection. I have none of the difficulty which exists in the minds of many gentlemen here with regard to the power of Congress to deal with slavery in this District. I have no doubt in my mind that Congress has full constitutional power and authority to emancipate the slaves-none whatever. The grant of’ power is in terms too broad, clear and ample to admit of doubt. For one, I should rejoice to see it done; and under other and less objectionable circumstances I would give my support to a bill for that purpose, provided it gave ample security to all the rights of all the parties concerned. I have, on other occasions, given proofs of the sincerity of the opinion. And while I say that I should have no difficulty in doing it, candor requires me to admit that if I considered, as many gentlemen here do, that it could reasonably be regarded as an aggression upon their constitutional rights, or an invasion of those rights, or that it would be an example which must necessarily be pernicious to them, I should forbear from doing it. But, in my view of the subject, I do not see that any such consequences as have been suggested could result from it; and therefore I should act upon it as if those objections had not been made. But, sir, I do not think that the proposition of the Senator from New York, under the circumstances which exist, commends itself to our support, and I will state in a very few words my reasons for not sustaining it. In the first place, the objection which my colleague makes to it is sound arind unanswerable. He says that it may be the means of defeating the bill for the abolition of the slave trade, which we yet hope will take a form acceptable to us He objects because it displaces that bill by striking it out and leaving no provision for the abolition of the slave trade, and then, if the proposition to emancipate the slaves should prove unacceptable to the people of the District, who are by the terms of the bill to decide whether they will agree to its provisions, the law becomes a nullity, and the slave trade will be left to be prosecuted as it now is. That, in my opinion, is a very serious objection, as I believe the chances are equal at least that the people will reject the law. I cannot abandon a measure so earnestly desired by the public as the abolition of the slave trade upon so uncertain a-contingency of a greater good. But the Senator from New York will pardon me for saying that the bill itself introduced by him is a crude and ill-digested measure, full of imperfections. It does not make proper provisions to secure the rights of all parties. It turns, as my colleague justly observed, these persons who are now bound to slavery ovei to freedom, without having any means whatever of supporting themselves.

Old and young, sick and well, are, by a dash of the pen, to be turned naked and destitute into the streets, without the slightest provision to save them from starvation. There ought to be some just, suitable and proper provision made upon that point, to save them 5*

Page 54 view page image

at least from crime and suffering, as there aremany persons in this cndio tion in competent to provide.for.themselves SQ suddenly. In doing a humane act let us not lose, sight of humanity. There ought,to be, many provisions, in relation to a subject so complicated as this is, which-I do, nqt find in this bill, in order to do justice,to all the parties concerned, T.henumber should first be officially ascertained, and enough should be kno,wn of their condition. and ability to provide for their physical necessities to enable us to judge, what suc’h an emergency demands of us. We know that a slave is incapa bie of holding property, and the moment emancipation? takes place, the obl gation of the master to provide for him ceaes,. While the bill is obviously too defective in this particular to become a law, it also fails to make any suitable provision for the indemnity of the masters. It proposes to appro priate two hundred thousand dollars, without any estimate of the value of the slaves, and to leave the whole matter to the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, without providing any mode for determining the questions which must arise.

It may well be doubted whether such a provision is con stitutional, as there is no provision for a jury to ascertain the damages in disputed cases, nor in fact any provision for bringing any question before the courts; but, whether constitutional or not, it is too imperfect to stand the test of scrutiny. The bill is alike imperfect in other respects; but I shall not enter further into the discussion in order to point them out-those ad verted to are fatal. While, therefore, I am in favor of the principle, I can-. not support this amendment. I believe no one who has advocated the principle is satisfied with the proposed amendment. Even the mover is so conscious of a tendency to defeat the slave trade measure, that he has asked leave to *ithdraw it, in order that we may have an opportunity to pass that bill if we can put it into an acceptable form.

This privilege, I regret to say, has been denied; and as we must rote upon the amendment under the cir cumstances which exist, I feel myself compelled to vote against it. It was not my purpose to do more than to notice some of the leading objections, that my vote might not be misunderstood. After a few remarks by Mr. Douglas and Mr. Soule, Mr.

DAVIS, of Massachusetts. Mr. President, only one word sir, as to the matter of fact. It is not a matter I claim to know of my own knowledge, but one that is to be sustained by testimony or to fall to the ground for want of testimony. Now, there is very little ground for the excitement which it seems to have elicited. But, sir, I will say to the hon orable Senator from Louisana, [Mr. SOULE,] that if proof exists I will furnish it; and if he does not find endugh of it to prove that persons have been imprisoned under some sort of authority, because they were colored people, and came there on board of ships and other vessels in the employment of navigators-if this is not so, then I have been under a great misapprehension. I apprehend when the case comes to be brought to the test, it will turn out that there is evidence, and enough of it; that it can be multiplied through a long period of years. Now, sir, all I said is this, not that the honorable Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. SOULE,] designed to mislead; I supposed no such thing-not at all; I know him to be entirely incapable of that: I presumed that he was not quite as well informed upon the subject as he supposed he was. That is all. Now, then, in regard to the fact that he last adverted to-that relating to the gentleman appointed by,the,State of Massachusetts to go there and judicially settle this question’ H’e did go there. There is no question about that. He went there under authority; but I have never asserted or ever supposed that the governor of Louisiana interposed any obstacle to the settlement of these questions; nor am I aware, of any law in Louisana that interposes any,obstacle. But it is a notorious i

Page 55 view page image

f factat he was obliged to leave the State in consequence of personal dang’.. That was the reason the question was not brought before the court.

?is own report will show what the state of facts was, and the reasons that warranted him in leaving the city of New Orleans. It was because of the personal danger in which he was. That was the reason. The substitute offered by Mr. Seward was then rejected. The amendments subjecting free colored persons to imprisonment and exile, were subsequently stricken out, and the Bill to abolish the Slave Trade in the District of Columbia was passed. l, Saturday, Sept. 28th.-Evening Sesion.: EXPLANATION. MR.

WINTHROP, I beg the indulgence of the Senate for a single moment, while I make an explanation of a somewhat personal character. It will be remembered by the Senate, that, during an exciting debate which occurred here most unexpectedly a week or two since, I introduced a letter from a Boston shipmaster, in regard to the imprisonment of our free colored seamen in the Southern ports. That letter was made the subject of very severe animadversion, and the author of it was stigmatized as a person wholly unworthy of credit. It was declared that his statements were entirely in conflict with the laws of Louisiana, and with the facts as they existed in all the Southern ports; and he was left under imputations of a most injurious character. Now, it is no part of my purpose to revive any excitement on this subject at the present moment, or to disturb the harmony of the Senate with any matters of controversy in these closing hours of the session. But having been the unwilling cause of bringing into question the character of a worthy Massachusetts sea-captain, I cannot consent that the session should come to an end without saying a few words to relieve him from the reproaches which have been cast upon him. MR.

HUNTER. I hope there is to be no debate on this subject. MR. WINTHROP. I will promise the Senator from Virginia, if he will permit me to proceed without interruption, that I will not, under any circumstances, enter into debate, and that I will not exceed two minutes by the clock. I desire only to say, here and now, in the simplest and briefest terms, that I have received from some of the most respectable merchants and ship. owners of Boston, the strongest testimonials of Captain Ranlett’s intelligence and integrity, representing him as second to no man in his profession in capacity or honesty, and speaking of him as entitled to every degree of consideration and confidence. I have received, also, from the same sources, many statements going to confirm the accuracy of the general facts which were set forth in his letter, and proving clearly that, while there is room for the idea, that his’language may have something of that exaggeration which we might expect to find in the offhand, impulsive statement of one not much accustomed to write letters for the public eye, it was yet the letter of an honest man, who knew what he was talking about, and who designed to tell nothing but what was strictly true. As the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Soule) has kindly proposed to make an explanation on the subject of the Louisiana law, I will not anticipate him on that point. I propose, however, without troubling the Senate further at this time, to append hereafter to these brief remarks the evidence which I have received I l%”

Page 56 view page image

56 on this subject, including the deposition, on oath, of Captain Ranlett himself.* I feel bound to say publicly to the Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Butler,)-to whom I have already shown this deposition-that it proves that he was correct in thinking that a question of salvage entered into the particular case which was described in the letter; but that it proves, also, that the case was adjudicated by the Chamber of Commerce, of Charleston, (S. C.), who bore testimony to the good conduct of Captain Ranlett on the occasion. But I will not trespass further on the indulgence of the Senate, except to repeat that, with the simple view of vindicating the character of an honest Boston shipmaster-of most respectable connections, who has been in the merchant service for thirty years, discharging his duty without fear and without reproach, and whose character for humanity is attested by the fact, that, within two years past, he has saved twenty-three persons from a sinking ship, which had been previously passed by another vessel,-I intend to place upon the same record which contains the imputations which have been cast upon him, the statements which have been furnished me in regard to the law, and the facts in question. MR. SOULE. I feel much relieved from the opportunity which is offered me of correcting an error into which I fell, most involuntarily, when the subject referred to by the Senator from Massachusetts was last before the Senate. I was under the impression that the law from which I read had never been altered, but’ was still then as it stood prior to 1842. I have since discoverpd that a subsequent statute had modified the condition of things existing under the law of 1830, with respect to people of color coming on board of ships from other States to Louisiana, so as to require the harbormasters to report them to the municipal authorities, who thereupon are to issue warrants for the arrest of such persons. But this law goes no further in its severity; on the contrary, it provides for the extradition of persons thus arrested to the State from whence they come-at their cost, if they are able to pay them, at the cost of the State if they are not. Such being the law of Louisiana since 1842, it seetmed to me that it was -not only natural, but right and proper, that it should have been enforced. Presumirng this, I immediately wrote a telegraphic despatch to the recorder of the first municipality of New Orleans, in order to ascertain whether or not the cases under the law last mentioned were such as to give countenance to the loud clamors raised on.the assertion that there were no less than hundreds that occurred in a single year. The answer which I have obtained, and which I hold in my hand, shows that the cases in the first municipality during the whole period which has elapsed since 1842, hardly reach one hundred; and, allowing an equal number to each of the other two municipalities, we have an average ratio of twelve a year for each. I desire to set myself right with respect to this matter, as nothing has ever been further from my mind than to do the least injustice to any human being, be he from what quarter he may, by any erroneous assertion into which I may have been betrayed. I wish, therefore, to have them corrected, so far as what I have said goes, and to exonerate the person alluded to in the former debate from any imputation based on a statement of the law and of the facts under it, not in accordance with the statement made here. Ma. BUTLER. I would not on any consideration have any gentleman suffer by any thing that might take place in the conflict of debate; and when my friend from Massachusetts appeals to me to do justice to an individual * See Appendix.

Page 57 view page image

57 whose name has been involved, and whose character has somewhat by implication been reflected upon on such an occasion, I will, in a very few words, so far as I can, complywith his request. That these Northern shipmasters should have adecided opposition to the law of South Carolina and other Southern ports, by which colored persons are committed to prison, I am not at all surprised; and that, under the influence of their feelings, and I pardon much to them, they should have made somewhat exaggerated statements, is perhaps naturally to be expected. I am sure that the candor of Captain Ranlett will concede the truth of what I have just said. His candor, too, has convinced me that he is willing to rebut the inferences which might have been drawn from the statements which have heretofore been made by his letter, and the certificate of the Chamber of Commerce of Charleston, satisfies me that he is a respectable man. No temptation on earth, so far as I know myself, could induce me to do injustice to any indiv:dual in our political strife; and I am inclined to think that, with a strong feeling of opposition to this law, Captain Ranlett has, as he says himnself, indulged in somewhat exaggerated statements. As an evidence’of that I must state, in justice to the law itself, and the practice under it, that in South Carolina, no individual has ever been sold under that law. I wish that point to be remembered.

And, so far as concerns the two individuals of whom Captain Ranlett has spoken, they ofcourse were released; how released I will not undertake to say; but I am rather inclined to think, by the persons to whom the vessel was consigned. My friend forn Louisiana has said that there were about some thirty a year arrested in Louisiana, and I suppose that not one-half that number have been arrested in South Carolina. And,.sir, I am confident there has been no disposition of late to enforce that law, in a way to make it painful to the Northern shippers. I measure my words, sir, and, so far as regards the English seamen, I believe there is a willingness to modify the law to-morrow. And, so far as regards even the colored men from the North, I think we would be willing to modify it. I am now stating what I believe to be strictly true, so far as regards Captain Ranlett. I must be permitted to say that, from the evidence of my friend from Massachusetts, I will, upon a matter of personal considerations not allow myself to do any thing that he will not, upon his own personal responsibility, endorse. MaIR. BERRIEN. The Senate has permitted explanatory remarks with reference to a discussion which took place the other day; and, having par-. ticipated in that discussion, I desire to say now a very few words. I do not understand the statement made to-day to deny that the representation which was made on that occasion was an exaggerated one, but I do not understand the statement which has been made to-day to have reference to that to which, I then replied, which was the statement made by a boarding-house keeper, in New York. So far as regards that statement, it stands precisely upon the footing upon which it stood inthe former debate. But what I desire particularly to say on this occasion, with reference to the validity of those laws which have been called in question, is, that, as on a former occasion a decision of a learned judge of the Circuit Court was referred to, and an opinion of Mr.

Attorney General Wirt, whenever it shall be the pleasure of gentlemen disposed to call in question the constitutional right of the Southern States to pass such laws which are calculated to prevent the introduction within their limits of persons disposed to make servile insurrection, I shall be prepared to show, by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, that it is a power which is undeniable, and undenied by that high tribunal. Here the subject-was dropped.

Page 58 view page image

A.PPENDIX. EXTRACT FROMB THE LAW OF LOUISIANA. Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana, in General Assembly convened,-That from and after the time specified in this act, (viz., Pix months after its passage), no free negro, nmulatto or person of color shall come into this State on board of any vessel or steamboat, as a cook, steward, mariner, or in any employment on board said vessel or steamboat, or as a passenger; and in case any vessel or steamboat shall arrive in any port or harbor, or landing on any river of this State, from any other State or foreign port, having on board any such free negro, mulatto or person of color, the harbor master or other officer having charge of such port, or any person or persons residing at or near said landing, shall forthwith notify the nearest judge or justice of the peace in the parish in which said port or harbor or landing is situated, of the arrival of said vessel or steamboat, whereupon the said judge or justice of the peace shall immediately issue a warrant to apprehend and bring every such free negro, mulatto, or person of color before im, and on the execution of said warrant, by bringing before him such free negro, mulatto or person of color, he shall forthwith commit him or her to the parish Jail, there to be confined until said vessel orsteamboat shall be ready to proceed to sea, or to her place of destination, when the master or commander of such vessel or steamboat shall by the written permit or order of the said judge or justice of the peace, take and carry away out of this State every such free negro, mulatto or person of color, and pay the expenses of his or her apprehension and detention. (16 March, 1842.) EXTRACT FROM THE LAW OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Section 3. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if any vessel shall come into any port or harbor of this State, from any other State or foreign port, having on board any free negroes or persons of color, as cooks, stewards, mariners, or in any other employment on board of said vessel, such free negroes or persons of color shall be liable to be seized and confined in jail, until said vessel shall clear out and depart from this.State; and that, when said vessel is ready to sail, the captain of said vessel shall be bound to carry away the said free negro or free person of color, and to pay the expenses of his detention; and in case of his neglect or refusal so to do, he shall be liable to be indicted, and,-on conviction thereof, shall be fined in a sum not less than one thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than two months; and such free negroes or persons of color shall be deemed and taken as absolute slaves, and sold in conformity to the provisions of the act passed oh the twentieth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, aforesaid. (1 Dec. 1S22.) DEPOSITION OF

CAPT. RANLETT. I, Charles A. Ranlett, of Charlestowri, in the County of Middlesex and Common wealth of Massachusetts, shipmaster, on oath depose and say In the month of August, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-seven, I was master of the barque Marblehead, of Boston, bound from Matanzas to St. Petersburg, with a cargo of sugar, belonging to Robert C.

Hooper, of Boston, and Messrs. Davis & Brooks, of New York. The vessel foundered at sea, and I took to my boat with my crew of fourteen men, of whom two were free colored men. We found a brig, called the Howell, a packet trading between Havanna and Charleston, ahan

Page 59 view page image

59 doned by the master, officers and crew, except the cook, a Portuguese, and a boy of about seventeen years of age, neither of whom could read or write, and consequently were entirely incapable of navigating the ship.

The cargo consisted of coffee, cigars, fruit, and a small quantity of specie, but she was mainly in ballast. In getting on board, I lost my boat, with all that was in her, including my chronometer. Neither my own crew nor the men of the other vessel, felt bound to obey my or ders in the new situation, and there was an evident disposition on tleir part to make free use of the cargo, and to run the vessel into Nassau, N. P., where they could get large salvage. I told the crew that somebody must be in command, and whoever was in command must be obeyed, or we should all be lost, and proposed to them to choose a master. They elected me, and I took conmmand. I ordered the wreck of the masts and spars to be cut away, rode out a gale on the banks’at a single anchor, rigged jurymasts, and ran for Charleston, where the vessel had been destined. I found the bills of lading, secured the specie, and prevented depredations on the cargo. I arrived off the bar of Charleston in a hurricane, when no pilots could come out, and ran in over the bar without one. I delivered the vessel to the owners, Messrs. John L. Pezant & Co. The case was laid before the Chamber of Commerce of Charleston, who gave me a certificate on parchment, under the seal of the Chamber of Commerce, a copy of which is annexed hereto, anid decided thai I should have, for my services, two hundred and fifty dollars, and my mate one hundred dollars, and each of my crew twenty-five dollars. On the morning of my arrival at Charleston, when 1
had been up the wharf into the city, I found, on my return, that my two colored seamen had been taken off by the public authorities, and cast into prison. Whether they were carried away in handcuffs I do not know, but that is the way in which I have often seen colored seamen carried to prison from Northern vessels, under such circumstances. It was necessary for me to return immediately to the North, and I remained but a few days in Charleston. Before leaving, I made inquiries of the public authorities as to the release of these men. I was informed, (and so I believe the law to be), that a master who’brings free colored seamen into a port in South Carolina, must take them away again in his vessel when it is ready for sea, they remaining in prison in the meantime; and that they cannot be released except to go on board the ship when she is ready to sail. I had no ship, and these men were no longer of my crew. I could not, therefore, procure their release, and was obliged to leave them in prison. I paid each of them twenty-five dollars, which was much more than enough to pay their jail fees, and spoke to the masters of Northern vessels lying there, to take them away with them when they should sail, some of whom promised me that they would attend to them. I further depose and say, that since the laws have prohibited the taking of free colored seamen into Southern ports, I have neyver taken any there except in Lhis instance, which was involuntary. I have frequently seen free colored seamen taken from vessels and put into prison, while lying in Southern ports. CHARLES A. RANLETT.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. SUFFOLK:, ss. September 18th, A. D. 1850.

Thien personally appeared the above named Charles A. Ranlett, and made oath that the above statement by him subscribed is true. Before me, JOHN

P. BIGELOW, Justice of Peace, and Mayor of Boston. EXTRACT FROM THE AWARD

OF THE COMMITTEE OF APPEALS, of the Chamber of commerce, of Charleston, S.

C., dated 10th August, 1837. “&Secondly-We do award, arbitrate, and determine, that in consideration of the services performed by the said captain, and crew, and ofthe proper, honest, and satisfactory manner in which they have acted, towards the owners and all concerned in the said brig Howell and cargo, they are entitled to a reasonable compensation.

Thirdly-We do award, arbitrate, and determine, that the said John L.

Pezant shall forthwith pay to the said Charles A. Ranlett the sumn of six hundred dollars; upon receipt whereof, the said Charles A. Ranlett shall sign, execute, and deliver all proper and sufficient discharges and acquittances in full, for all claim and claims whatsoever, on the said brig Howell, her cargo and freight, either from himself, from the late crew of the said barque, or from any other person or persons whomsoever, by reason of the premises.

Page 60 view page image

Fourthly-We do award, arbitrate and determine, that the said sum of Six hundred dollars to he paid to the’said’Charles A. Ranlett as aforesaid, shall be ditided and distributed among the late captain and crew of the said barque in manner follo*iag-that is to sav: The captain shall retain for himself the sum of - $250 00 He shall pay the mate – 100 00 And he shall pay the rest of the crew, ten in number, $25 each 250 00 $600 00

Which will distribute the sum to be received by him as aforesaid.” To this document, duly signed and sealed, is annexed the receipt of the mate and of the ten sailors, including John Reed and William Dunlop, the two colored sailors, for their shares respectively of the above award. This receipt is dated August 11th, 1837, and the signatures are witnessed by Alfred Kenrick. BOsTON, 13th Sept., 1I50. DEAR SIP  1 notice that many Southern gentlemen deny the truth of the imprisonment of the free blacks who go in our ships to their ports. This is too notorious ti be d(enied by any one. For years, there has not been a colored cook or steward on board oor ships, who have not, on their arrival at New Orleans, been put into prison,-there kept till the vessel was ready for sea, and then taken out, by paying their board and all prison expenses,-thus depriving us of their services, and leaving us to hire others to do their work while in port.

This has caused more feeling, and made more abolitionists among shipowners, than anything else, because it deprives Americans of their liberty, which is unconstitutional. If they had passed their laws, -that no free colored seamen should be allowed on shore without a pass, or in charge of some officer of the ship, there would be no particular objection. Somn three or four years since, I sent two slaves back to New Orleans, who had secreted themselves on board my ships, and which cost me from four to five hundred dollars, and for which I have had much obloquy poured out on me by public speakers in Faneuil Hall, and from certain prints which you are familiar with. I have thus shown, by my acts, that I have been for upholding the Constitution; but so long as these obnoxious Southern laws are in force, it cannot be expected that nouch effort will be made to return fugitive slaves. If it should be found necessary to sustain you in your remarks, certificates could be forwarded of mo(re than one thousand imprisonments, within three years, at the port of New Orleans alone. Yours respectfully, JOHN H. PEARSQN. HoN. R. C. WINTHROP. BosTON, 18th Sept., 1850. DEAR SIa,-In regard to the-impriabnment of our free colored seamen, it is too notorious for any Southerner to deny, and instead of names, I enclose you two Bills, which I paid at New Orleans last year and the present, which speak for themselves -also, one account of ship ” Tiber,” at Charleston; and they are only a sample,of hundreds which 1 can produce, and which it would only lumber lip your desk and the mail to forward. I hope you will be able to have this obnoxious law rescinded, which would allay much of the asperity of those interested in commerce. Owing to this trouble, all the ships leaving the Eastern ports avoid taking colored persons, and have to employ white persons of all kindred and tongues for cooks and stewards, and they are in such demand that they generally have from 4 to 6 dollars a month more than colored.

But when vessels are bound to Europe and other parts of the world, they take colored persons, not knowing that they may proceed from thence to some Southern port. This was the case with the ” H. Eddy.” She went from Rio to New Orleans, and the bills showv the fate of her blacks and the great expense to those concerned. I enclose you a letter from Capt. Wm.

Lord, Jr., of ship ” York,” which shows how kind they are at Charleston.

Capt. Ranlett stands well in this port as a ship master, and would not make any statement at variance with facts. Yours respectfully, JOHN H.

PEARSON. Hon. R. C. WINTHROP.

Page 61 view page image

61 NEW ORLEANS, April 9th, 1849. Ship Jnnah Eddy,* To Parish Prison-Dr.

For maintenance of two free men of color, 25 cents,… $21,50 ” admission and discharge………… 3,00 ” Recorder’s fees, MunicipalityNo.

2,…….. 5,00 ” medical attendance,. “clothing, $29,50 CHAS. KILSHAW, Deputy Sheriff. * Jno. H. Pearson, owner. NEW ORLEANS, April 2d, 1850.

Ship JAnnah Eddy. To Parish Prison-Dr. For maintenance of one free man of color 23 days at 50 cents,. $11,50 admission and discharge…………

1,50 ” Recorder’s fees, Municipality No. 2,…….. 5,00 ” medical attendance, visits a $ per visit,… “clothing,.. c hospital days a 12 1-2
per day,. $18,00 Received Payment, CHAS. KILSHAW, Sheriff. Rec’d of Mr.

Barrett, Six Dollars, amount of fees and costs for William Little. New Orleans, March 8th, 1850. C. V. JOULE, Clerk. Fees for imprisonment of the Steward. J. H. P. Rec’d, New Orleans, April 4th, 1850, from Barnettt &

Hayward, Twenty-two Dollars, for Twenty-two days, as Cook and Steward, in full of all demands, from ship Hannah Eddy. $22. GEORGE HOOPER. The above is bill for services to supply the one in prison. CHARLESTON, S. C. Ship Tiber, Capt. Cowell, To A. H. Brown-S. C. D. Sept. 15, 1841-To arrest, registry, dieting, &c., of Samuel Murray, colored seaman,…………. 15

06 Constable,…………. 1 00 $16 06 Rec’d pay’t, JOHN D. MILLER, for Sh’ff, Arrest, Registry,. Recogn.,. Affa’t,,. Key,.. Maintenance,.

Constable,. $2 00 2 00 I 00 31 1 00 8 75 1 00 $16 06 BOSTON, Sept. 17th, 1850. ROSERT C. WINTHROP, Esq.: Dear Sir-Understanding that your statement in the Senate, ” That our free colored seamen are taken from our ships and imprisoned, while in New Orleans and other Southern ports,” has been denied by Southern gentlemen, I take the liberty of stating to you a case which came within my knowledge. In October, 1836, I arrived at the port of Charleston, S. C.-master of the ship “York “-having on board my ship two free colored seamen; and knowing the laws 6 i J. H. PEARSOI%I.

Page 62 view page image

62 of South Carolina, I came to anchor in the lower harbor, with a determination to keep them on board, until an opportunity presented of sending them to some Northern port, without landing them at Charleston. I immediately went up to town for the purpose of finding some vessel bound North, and after much search could find only the steamer “Alabama,” to leave the next day for New York. I made an arrangement with the captain to take them-but on my return to my ship, I found the authorities had been there, taken the men out, and lodged them in prison. I returned to town, visited the prison, and desired to see the men, which was for a long time refused, but after much talk and delay, the request was granted. I supplied them with some money, and left them with the assurance that they should be liberated on the next day. The next morning 1 devoted myself at once to the work of liberating my men, but was unable, owing to the many delays made by the authorities, to get them out of prison until three o’clock. They obliged me to procure the affidavit of the captain of the steamer, that he was about to leave the State of South Carolina-bound to New York-and would land the men there; also to pay them various charges amounting to $18. Thus, by a law plainly unconstitutional, were two men, who had committed no crime, thrown into prison, and a tax imposed upon the owners of the ship, of $ 18, besides my time for two entire days, which otherwise would have been devoted to their interests. This is only one of many cases which have come under my observation. Trusting that something may be done to protect the interest of our free colored seamen, I remain, with much respect, Yours truly, WM. LORD, Jr. KENNEBUNK, Maine. BOSTON, September 19th, 1850. HIoN. ROBERT C. WINTHROP, Dear Sir,-I have just been reading your speech on the subject of the unfair, unconstitutional and inhuman laws of the South, on the subject of the imprisonment of our free colored seamen, who may visit them, in the line of their calling, or be driven there by stress of weather. I will premise what I am about to say, by stating that I am no abolitionist, and have but a poor opinion of the “
ultras ” of that sect. I am certain, they have done much to injure the cause they appear so zealous to promote. I spent the last winter in New Orleans, and while there, I had two ships arrive, one of which was commanded by a Capt. Sampson. He had a colored cook and steward, the latter long and well known here, as a most faitlhful and honest man, having a wife and family, and but little, if any, darker in complexion than many of the Saxon race, but having a slight curl in his hair,-just etiough to betray him. As I understand the laws of Louisiana, iti becomes the Captain’s duty, if he has colored seamen on hoard, to make the fact known to the mnuni(ipal authorities on his arrival, in default of which, hlie is liable to a fine of $ 5()0O. This having been done, both cook and steward were taken to jail, where they remained some weeks, fed upon shin soup and bread only, unless supplied from the ship’s table;-accompanied by thieves, and rogues of all classes,-fifty cents per day being exacted for this miserable fare,-besides jail fees, to what amount, I do not know. In the mean time the Captain was compelled to hire a cook anid steward, at a high rate of’ wages. The manly steward shed tears, when he found there was no escape from this usage. The ship from which this outrage was committed bore your honored name. Since writing thus far, one of my Captains, who commanded the ship Sophia, reminds me, that on approaching our coast some few years siice, he was overtaken by a violent gale, in which his ship sprung a-leak, and the crew being exhausted, and the leakl increasing, they were taken off by the sliip Russell Glover, and carried to New Orleans, where the cook of the Sophia, and a sick colored seaman, that was put on board by our Consul at Valparaiso, were both taken to prison, where the Captain was compelled to give bonds, that they should be taken out of the State. The cook was taken from jail by a friend of the Captain, and a berth provided for him, but what became of the sick man, he never knew, althouglh hlie deputed some one to see the needful done for him. I have taken some pains to inquire into the charaeter of the much abused Captain Ranlett, whose word has been so uticeremoni

Page 63 view page image

63 ously doubted. His character stands high for truth and veracity, and from the tenor of his letter, he is in no way deficient in talents. In fact, he has long been known as a first rate man, in every respect, and I have no doubt every word he writes to you is true to the letter. I can have Capt. Sampson’s and Capt. Knowles’ depositions taken and forwarded to you, but I think it is unnecessary. Please excuse this hasty scrawl, written in the bustle and hurry of business, and believe me; Yours sincerely, BENJAMIN BANGS. BOSTON, Sept. 20, 1850. R. G. WINTHROP, EsQ.

Dear Sir-Observing by the journal of Congressional proceedings that the subject of imprisoning our free black seamen in Southern sea ports has been brought forward, and the fact called in question, justice prompts us to add our testimnony, happy if it may have any weight in confirming the statements yout have made. For years it has been our custom when sending ships to Charleston and New Orleans, to avoid taking black cooks, knowing that immediately upon the arrival of the ship at either of those ports they will be arrested and imprisoned until the ship is ready to sail, and the ship owners subjected to the expense of their board and imprisonmenrt, and the additional expense and inconvenience of employing a temporary cook to take their place while in port. We have now before us the disbursement account of one of our ships which went to New Orleans last May from a port in Europe, with a black cook on board, and we find charged 28th May, 1850, ” paid at Par,sh,prison lor black cook, $ 9.” Also, a charge in same account, paid 17 days service, for a substitute at $1 per day, $17. Happy if any information we can furnish may be useful to you, allow us to add our personal regards. Respectfully, yours, &c THOMAS B. WALES & CO. HON.

R. C. WINTHROP-Dear Sir-I notice in the report of the debate in the Senate that Mr.appeared to contradict your statement ” that by the laws of Louisiana tie stewards and cooks of negro blood arriving at the port of New Orleans had been imnprisoned,” though in another part of the debate he speaks of the law in question as a necessary police regulatior,. His remark ” that negro stewards and cooks have not been removed from vessels at anchor in the river,” has, I apprehend, no bearing,on the subject.

Vessels bound to New Orleans, do not anchor in the river, if it can be avoided, as it is not considered safe so to do. They are made fast to the Levee, the connexion being by a brow or causeway from the shore. Long timbers are extended from the shore to the ship, on which planks are laid, and on this brow (so called) the cargo is laden or unladen. Usually there are two or three ships in a tier, and per. haps the second ship may be sixty feet from the shore, but, whether more or less, the right to imprison is, I apprehend, the same. On the arrival of a ship at the Levee, that portion of the crew being negroes, are immediately sent to prison, there to remain until the vessel leaves, when on payment of fees they are returned. 1 enclose a bill showing the amount paid by Captain Pike, of ship Bowditch, for the imprisonment of Charles Williams, negro cook of said vessel. At New Orleans, the imprisonment of negro cooks and stewards is so well understood, that I did not think any one would attempt to dispute the fact. Is the imprisonment above mentioned, a necessary and justifiable regulation? This, I take it, is the point at issue. Very respectfully yours, &e. THEODORE CHASE. Ship Bowditch, Pike, Master, To 2d My Police Prison, Dr. To fees as per tariff on Charles Williams,* f. m. c.

- $6 25 Bond on…… I 100 $7 25 NEW ORLEANS, May 22d, 1847. Received Payment, N. H. HACKETT, per E. WELSH. * Negro cook. I BOSTON, Sept. 20, 1850.

Page 64 view page image

64 BOSTON, Sept. 23d, 1850. Hon. R. C. WINTHROP, Dear Sir:-Mr. J. I.

Bowditch requests me to write you my impressions relative to the operation of the Southern State laws upon our colored seamen. I do this with pleasure, though 1 cannot flatter myself that I shall add anything to your knowled(ge of the subject. The oppression of those laws is now so well understood in Boston, by ship owners, that I may say that the almost universal practice with them is not to employ or ship any colored seamen on board of vessels bound to Charleston, Savannah, or New Orleans ports, where it is the custom to take them out of the ship to prison, and hold the master and ship liable for board and other expenses. Thus the ship owner is debarred from the employment of a valuable class of men, among whom are found the best cooks and stewards; and ihe colored seaman finds every avenue of employment closed to him, except that part of the merchant service, which directly or indirectly has no contact with the cotton ports. Instances might be produced, in abundance, of the enforcement of those laws, in taking men from their ships and placing them in prison.

Only this morning, a very respectable shipmaster told me that he had on two occasions taken men from the calaboose in New Orleans, when on the point of sailing from there, whose only crime was the color of their skin.

Yours very respectfully, WILLIAM PARSONS. BOSTON, Sept. 21, 1850. Hon. R.

C. WINTHIROP Dear Sir:-I have been very m’uch pleased in reading your defence of our poor colored cooks and stewards, that have been taken by force and plunged into dungeons, without having committed any crime, except that their skins were a little darker thlan ours. I could only wish that you should have been furnished with a great number of cases that have c,ome under my knowledge. This, if necessary, you shall have before your return again to Washington. I had a case in my ship Hercules, in Charleston, where my captain offered bonds to any amount, that if his cook or steward stepped on the wharf, or had any communication with the shore, or slaves, that they might be taken; but no, this would not answer, and they were both taken by force to jail, where they were kept five weeks, until the ship was discharged and loaded, and then had to pay their board, and I was under the necessity of hiring a cook and steward during the time the ship was there. Respectfully your friend, and obedient servant, BENJAMIN RICH. SALeM, MASS., Sept., 24th, 1850. SIR:-I have the honor to state, that, in the year 1S23, while in command of the brig Lion, of Salem, I arrived at Charleston, S. C., on the 7th day of October of that year, from the port of Havre de Grace, in France, that one among my crew was John Charles, a citizen of Massachusetts, acting in the capacity of cook and steward; that on the 8th day of October, the said John Charles was taken from on board my vessel, by the Sheriff of the city of Charleston, and committed to the prison in-that city. The following is a true copy of the bill for his board and expenses charged to, and paid by me, as per a receipt endorsed on the back of it: CHARLESTON GAOL, 1823.

Fees for John Charles, from the 8th of October to the 20th of October, being 13 days, at 37 1-2 cts. per day,…….. $4 87i Key,..,…………… 1 06i $5 934 Received payment, SAMUEL HYtNS, per H.

M. HYRINS. On the back of said bill is the following endorsement: Received the within from Capt. Felt, of brig Lion. H. M. HyRtNS.

Page 65 view page image

65 On the 20th October, 1823, the day of the discharge of said John Charles from the Charleston city prison, I received a receipt, a copy of which I annex: CHARLESTON, S. C., 20th October, 1823. Received of Capt.

Felt, two dollars, for taking up a free person of color out of brig Lion, under the Act of 1822, for Sheriff C. D. THOMAS P. HARVEY. I would further say, that notwithstanding the charge of 37 1-2 cents per day which I was informed was for board, the man complained to me that he was not supplied with victuals sufficient to sustain him, and I then provided him meat and bread from my own stores. The foregoing facts I am ready to dec]are under the solemnity of an oath. Respectfully, one of your constituents, JONATHAN

P. FELT. Hon. R. C. WINTHROP, Senate of the U. S. BOSTON, Sept. 21st, 1850. Hon. R. C. WINTHROP: Sir-I take the liberty of forwarding the enclosed, thinking that they may be of use to ydo’L on the subject of imprisonment of free colored men at New Orleans. I presume every ship owner who has had vessels at the South can procure similar vouchers. You will observe that they are dated 1845 and 1850. I should not wish to have my name used in connection therewith, nor would it be necessary, as the name of the ship, as expressed upon the bill for jail fees, would, I presume, be quite sufficient. Respectfully your ob’t serv’t. NEW ORLEANS, March 11, 1850. Ship Jriosto, To Parish Prison, Dr. For maintenance of one Free Man of Color, 3 days at 50 cents,. $1,50 ” Admission and discharge,……….. 1,50 ” Recorder’s Fees, Municipality No. 2,…….

5,00 ” Medical Attendance, visits at $ per visit,. Clothing. Hospital days at 12 1-2 per day,. $8,00 Received Payment, CHARLES KILSHAW, Sheriff.

Ship.riosto and owners, To Parish Prison, Dr. For Jail Fees as per Tariff on David Lawrence, confined from 6th to 28th March inclusive,……….’… $13,00 Received Payment, C. K. WISE, Deputy Sheriffand Jailor. NEW ORLEANS, March 28, 1845. STATEMENT FROM SALEM, MASS. On the 10th of last January, the barque Europa, Capt. Nathaniel Brown, sailed from Boston. On the fourth day out, she was dismasted, and on the 6th of Feb. put into Savannah, in distress. On the 10th, Capt. B.

writes to his owners in this city as follows: “The authorities of the place have taken from me the steward and cook, and placed them in jail for safe keeping, and I have been obliged to hire two others, at 75 cents each per day.” The entire expense to the owners, for jail fees, hire of substitutes, &c., was between one hundred and fifty and( one hundred and sixty dollars. We have before us the originals of the jail bills, and subjoin copies, as curiosities, viz: Capt. Nathaniel Brown, and owners of the ship Europa, 1850. To Thomas B. Maxwell-Dr. Feb. 7th. To carrying to the jail of Chatham County, George Johnson, (steward) and Ed.war dohnson, (nn)………. I T-,-…………I 50 Rec’d Payment, THOS. B. MAXWELL.

,.:1.I.1 -:

Page 66 view page image

SAVANNAH, 14th March, 1850. To Savannah Jail-Dr. For maintenance and fees of George and Edward Johnson, stewards, ” key for two………….. $ 2,50
rations 36 days, at 47 cts. per day, for 2……… 33,84 ” whipping, “
apprehending fee,. mileage,. advertising in “Georgian,” “Friend of the Family,” ” guard-house fee,. officers’ fee, blanket,. ” physician’s fee, G. Johnson, $8,00 i E. Johnson, 7,50……..1,50 $51,84 Cah a e. jr.3,05

54,89 Payment, ISAAC D. LYon, jailor C. S. SAVANNAH, March 14, 1850.

Barque Europa and Owners, To Thomas B. Jfaxwell-Dr. For bringing from jail, George Johnson, (steward,) and Edward John son, (cook,)…….,…

$3,00 Drayage of their clothes,………….. 50 Rec’d Payment, EXTRACTS

FROM THE OPINION OF THE HON. WILLIAM JOHNSON, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, delivered on the 7th August, 1823, in the case of the arrest of the British seaman under the third section of the State act, entitled, ” An act for the better regulation of free negroes and persons of color, and for other purposes,” passed in December la’st-(Charleston, S. C.) * ” Certain seizures under this act were made in January last, some on board of American vessels, and others in British vessels; and among the latter one very remarkable for not having left a single man on board the vessel, to guard her, in the captain’s absence.” “Two questions have now been made in the argument-the first on the law of the case, the second on the remedy. On the unconstitutionality of the law uinder which this man is confined, itis not too much to say that it will not bear argument; and I feel myself sanctioned in using this strong language, from considering the course of reasoning by which it has been defended. Neither of the gentlemen has attempted to prove that the power therein assumed by the State can be exercised without clashirg with the general powers of the United States to regulate commerce; but they have both strenuously contended that, ex necessitate, it was a power which the State must and would exercise; and, indeed, Mr. - concluded his argument with the declaration, that if a dissolution of the Union must be the alternative, he was ready to meet it.

Nor did the argumnent of Col. - deviate at all from the same course.

Giving it in the language of his own summary, it was this: South Carolina was a sovereign State when she adopted the Constitutiona sovereign State cannot surrender a right of vital importance; South Carolina, therefore, either did not surrender this right, or still possesses the power to resume it; and whether it is necessary or when it is necessary to resume it, she is herself the sovereign judge. But it was not necessary to give this candid expose of the grounds which this law assumes; for it is a subject of positive proof that it is altogether irreconcilable with the powers of the General Government; that it necessarily compromits the public 66 Me Cash advanced by Dep. jailor, THos. B. MAXWM:LL. I.. ii,

Page 67 view page image

67 peace, and tends to embroil us with, if not separate us from, our sister States; in short, that it leads to a dissolution of the Union, and implies a direct attack upon the sovereignty of the United States. Let it be observed that the law is, ” if any vessel” (not even the vessels of the United States excepted) “shall come into any port or harbor of this State,” &c., bringing in free colored persons, such persons are to become ” absolute slaves;” and that without even a form of trial, as I understand the act, they are to be sold. By the next clause, the sheriff is vested with absolute power, and expressly enjoined to carry the law into effect, and is to receive the one-half of the proceeds of the sale. The object of this law, and it has been so acknowledged in argument, is to prohibit ships coming into this port from employing colored seamen, whether citizens or subjects of their own Government or not. But if this State can prohibit Great Britian from employing her colored subjects, (and she has them of all colors on the globe,) or if at liberty to prohibit the employment of her subjects of the African race, why not prohibit her from using those of Irish or of Scottish nativity? If the color of the skin is to preclude the Lascar or the Sierra Leone seamen, why not the color of his eye or his hair exclude from our ports the inhabitants of her other territories? In fact, it amounts to the assertion of the power to exclude the seamen of the territories of Great Britian, or any other nation, altogether. With regard to various friendly nations, it amounts to an actual exclusion in its present form. Why may not the shipping of Morocco or of Algiers cover the commerce of France with this country, even at the present crisis? Their seamen are all colored; and even the State of Massachusetts might lately, and may perhaps now, expedite to this port a vessel with her officers black, and her crew composed of Nantucket Indians, known to be amongst the best seamen in our service. These might all become slaves under this act.” “But to all this, the plea of necessity is urged; and of the existence of that necessity we are told the State alone is to judge. Where is this to land us? Is it not asserting tlte right in each State to throw off the Federal Constitution at its will and pleasure? ]f it can be done as to any particular article, it may be done as to all; and, like the old Confederation, the Union becomes a mere rope of sand. But I deny that the State surrendered a single power necessary to its security against this species of property. What is to prevent their being confined to their ships, if it is dangerous for them to go abroad?

This power may be lawfully exercised.-To land their cargoes, take in others, and depart, is all that is necessary to ordinary comnmerce, and is all that is properly stipulated for in the convention of 1815, so far as relates to seamen. If our fears extend also to the British merchant, the supercargo, or master, being persons of color, I acknowledge that as to them the treaty precludes ius from abridging their rights to free ingress and egress, and occupying houses and warehouses for the purposes of commerce. As to them, this law is an express infraction of the treaty. No such law can be passed consistently with the treaty, and, unless sanctioned by diplomatic arrangement, the passing of such a law is tantamount to a declaration of war. But if the policy of this law was to keep’foreign free persons of color from holding communion with our slaves, it certainly pursues a course altogether inconsistent with its object. One gentleman likened the importation of such persons to that of clothes infected with the plague, or of wild beasts from Africa; the other to that of fire brands set to our own houses, only to escape by the light. But surely if the penalty inflicted for coming here is, in its effect, that of being domesticated, by being sold here, then we ourselves inoculate our community with the plague, we ourselves turn loose the wild beasts in our streets, and we put the fire brand under our own houses. If there are evil persons abroad who would steal to this place, in order to do us this mischief, (and the whole provisions of this act are founded in that supposition,) then this mode of disposing of offenders by detaining them here presents the finest facilities in the world fo(r introducing themselves lawfully into the very situation in which they would enjoy the best opportunities of pursuing their designs. Now, if this pf)lea of necessity coutld avail at all against the Constitution and Laws of the United States, certainly that law cannot be pronounced necessary which may defeat its own ends; much less when other provisions of unexceptionable legality might be resorted to, which would operate solely by the end proposed, viz: the effectual exclusion of dangerous characters.-On the fact of the necessity for all this exhibition of legislation and zeal, I say nothing-I neither admit nor deny it. In i

Page 68 view page image

68 common with every other citizen, I am entitled to my own opinion; but when I express it, it shall be done in my private capacity. But what shall we say to the provisions of this act, as they operate on our vessels of war? Send your sheriff on board one of them, and would the spirited young men of the navy submit to have a man taken? It would be a repetition of the affair of the Chesapeake. The public mind would revolt at the idea of such an attempt, and yet it is perfectly clear that there is nothing in this act which admits of any exception in their favor. Upon the whole, I am decidedly of opinion that the third section of the State act now under consideration, is unconstitutional and void, and that every arrest made under it subjects the parties making it to an action of trespass.” i

Powered by DLXS

To comment or inquire about content, contact moa-feedback@umich.edu To report errors, contact umdl-help@umich.edu Reprint Information for this collection