which it counts in with its population as an
integral portion of the constituency which
make up the body politic ?
I hold otherwise, and shall deny boldly that
there is any merit of claim in the slaveowner,
to ask either in law, equity or morals, the pro-
tection which in law is properly due to prop-
erty so known and recognized by the uni-
versal consent of mankind everywhere.
Why is it, that no constitutional provision
or State law is necessary to perfect my right
to own a farm, a house, a horse or any other
of the almost innumerable subjects of private
property found in a civilized community, but
that (as everybody admils) some constitu-
tional or legislative provision is necessary to
enable me to own a negro slave?
The answer is and can only be in the differ-
ence in the foundation and origin of my prop-
erty or estate in the two different kinds of sub-
jects. The one is, by the laws of God and
nature, the subject of absolute proprietorship,
tracing back man's title to the mandate of the
Almighty' at the creation of the world, when
he created the earth and its beasts, the air and
its fowls, the sea and its fishes, and gave to
man the dominion over them.
For that I refer my friends, and especially
the gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr.
Barry,) in answer to his point of scriptural
authority, to the first chapter of Genesis.
After God bad created the heavens and the
earth, after he had made the beasts of the field,
the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea,
then he "created man in his own image—in
the image of God created he him, male and
female created he them. And God blessed
them, and God said unto them: Be fruitful
and multiply and replenish the earth, and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish
of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over every living thing that moveth upon the
earth. And God said: Behold I have given
you every herb bearing seed, which is upon
the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the
which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to
you it shall be tor meat. And to every beast
of the earth, and to every fowl of the air
and to everything that creepeth upon the
earth, wherein there is life, I have given every
green herb for meat; and it was so." God
in his wisdom gave man dominion over all
things he had made when be created him. I
read nowhere that God gave man dominion
over his fellow-man to enslave him. That
was tolerated, but it was not the decree of Got
himself.
The other, (foundation and origin,) utterly
unsupported by any such divine authority
rests essentially and entirely upon local muni-
cipal authority, and bus no recognized exist
ence in any State, until such State in some
solemn and authentic form has agreed to tole
rate the institution.
When the State, therefore, takes my land
of cattle, and appropriates them to the public |
use, it is under a moral and constitutional ob-
ligation to pay me for them; because it takes
a property which I own, not, by its permis-
sion, but by a title paramount, and to which
its assent was not required. But when it de-
clares that my negro slave shall now, or at
some stated time hereafter go free, it does no
more than revoke the assent which it has
heretofore given to the existence of property
in such a creature, and there is no obligation
morally upon the State to pay me, because it
will no longer allow such creatures to be a
subject of ownership. Upon this distinction,
therefore, plainly existing in the nature and
origin of property in a negro slave, and prop-
erty in any other thing capable of ownership,
I hold that the emancipation of such slave is
not such taking of property for public use as
comes within the purview of the constitu-
tional provision and obliges us to pay for it.
To give it such a construction would be tan-
tamount to saying that the Constitution baa
declared, that a State once admitting African
slavery, could never afterward abolish it,
without making a just compensation to its
owners.
No one will pretend that any inference is
deductable from anything to be found, in the
Constitution of our own State or any other.
This view of the case is strengthened by what
I think will be found to be the fact, that
whilst nearly all the original States of the
Union were once slave States, and a majority
of them have by legislation at different times,
emancipated their slaves, none of them, so
far as my readings extend, have felt bound
to make, or have in fact made, any monied
compensation for the slaves so liberated.
It is no answer to this suggestion to say
that in these cases manumission was provided
for prospectively; the principle applicable to
the two cases is precisely the same.
If slaves are property and to be paid for
when emancipated, the value, of the interest
destroyed cannot affect the general principle.
When it is declared that my slave who is
now a slave for life, shall be free in ten years
hence, or when he arrives at a certain age«,
yea by that act as emphatically take my
property as when you declare him free at
once. In the one case, the extent and value
of the property taken from me is not as great
as the other, but it is impossible to distinguish
the cases in principle.
Cases may no doubt be found connected
with the question of emancipation, where
compensation has been provided, I will not
say we have not the power to do so, if we
think it expedient to exercise it. I am only
attempting to show that the obligation upon
us to provide such a compensation, has no
foundation that principle of constitutional
law which its advocates so frequently invoke
in support of it.
When Congress abolished slavery in the
District of Columbia, they thought fit to |
