H. of R.] Case of Marigny D'Auterive. [FEB. 7, 1828. wish to establish, affirmatively, any right to the services political association. Every man, capable of carrying of these for defence, we may yet be led to doubt the arms, should take them up at the first order of him who wisdom of admitting that they may not be so used. has the power of making war." Not only citizens" are When their number and rapid increase are considered, it here spoken of, but "every man capable of carrying becomes a momentous question. If they are wholly ex arms. "Again, in a succeeding section: "As every citiempt from the military power of this Government, the fact zen or subject is bound to serve the State, the sovereign is most important, because it would follow that the bur- has a right to enlist whom he pleases." Again: "NO PERdens of war must fall, with seven fold force, on the North son is naturally exempt from taking up arms in defence and West. In time of great pressure for men, not only of the State, the obligation of every member of society must personal duties fall more heavily on the free States, being the same. Those alone are excepted who are ininvolving the loss of life and health, but they must be capable of handling arms, or supporting the fatigues of subjected to vast and inevitable sacrifices of property, war. This is the reason why old men, children, and wofrom the abandonment and neglect of business. As men, are exempted." Thus the rule is universally com. slaves increase, in the same proportion, if no part may prehensive. "Those alone are excepted who are incabe called upon for defence, must the free white citizens pable of handling arms." Such is the rule laid down by of the States, where they exist, be kept at home for the writers on public law. If those writers are authority, in preservation of domestic peace. Their exemption, respect to the right of the State to property, why not equal therefore, not only takes so many persons from the list, authority in respect to the right of the State to the serbut actually occasions the absense of nearly as many vice of persons "No person is naturally exempt." It more to guard them. Laws already exist in some, per- is manifest that those who penned the Constitution had haps several, of the States, where slavery prevails, pro- this writer distinctly in view; and is it not obvious, that the viding that only a certain portion of the militia shall leave expression persons, so repeatedly used to designate the slaves, was a word, not of chance, but of choice, perfectly understood in its relation to the "common defence?" the State at one time. The burdens of defence are already, from existing causes, heavier on the free States than on those which I take [said Mr. M.] the sound general principle to be, have slaves. Your tables of enlistments, showing the that all who live upon the soil are bound to defend the proportion of soldiers who enter the public service from soil-that all who live under a Government are bound to As it relates to this description the different portions of the Union, would put this mat- defend the Government. ter in a striking point of light. Look, too, at the militia of persons, the position taken derives great weight from of the States. In Ohio, if I am rightly instructed, one- this consideration. The State Governments, before the fifth of the population are on the muster-roll; in Louis- Constitution was formed, unquestionably possessed the iana, one-fifteenth; in South Carolina, one-nineteenth. power to call those persons into service for defence. The tax, the heavy tax, of arms, uniforms, trainings, and The State Governments held over them supreme control ammunition, bears, in time of peace, with three-fold se- for purposes of war. But the States gave up to the General verity upon us now. What, then, must it be in time of Government the executive power of making war. In this war, even in ordinary contests? But admit the principle particular, no reservation was made-no class of persons contended for by those who sustain this bill, and how ex-exempted. It follows, as a clear and necessary conse ceedingly unfair and disproportioned would be the bur- quence, that the United States have the same full and dens of the North and South in time of great trial and se. sovereign power which the States, respectively, possess. vere pressure. ed. And this argument appears to me unanswerable. Nor is this idea, that this class of persons may be called upon to defend the country, founded alone in theory. A case has been brought to our notice, by a gentleman from North Carolina, where the Continen tal Congress, during the Revolutionary war, called on some of the States to draw on this population for several thousand men. The right, therefore, has been exercised. In other countries, where slavery has existed, it has been frequently and commonly exercised. At the battle of Marathon the slaves were unchained from their work blocks, and placed in the ranks beside citizens. I dare to say, you recollect, Sir, in the recent researches in Africa, it is stated, that Barca Gana, a Negro and a slave, commanded the forces of the Sheik of Bornou. In the celebrated historical Scottish Novels, giving a pic. ture of the times and manners when Richard Cœur de Lion reigned,-Gurth and Wamba even wore collars with the name of their master, and yet went out to battle with him. The history of the Northern Nations of Europe is full of cases in point. We are not now considering a case of po licy or expediency; but the naked question of abstract right, or constitutional power. If the right exists it might be highly expedient to exercise it at home, or on ordinary occasions. Wars, pressing, desolating wars, which have come to all nations, may come to us. Defensive war is often best carried on by offensive operations. Scipio did not defend Rome in the plains of Italy. He risked no second battle of Canna. Sir, he carried the war into Africa; defeated Hannibal, and saved Rome by victory be fore the gates of Carthage. Such may be our policy. Suppose hostilities should break out between this nation and Mexico or Colombia-which God in his mercy avert. I pray for perpetual peace between these Republics. Or You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the great and delicate point, that the slave population may be touched by the General Government in time of war, is admitted. Under the eminent domain, it is conceded that slaves may be taken as property. All that is delicate in the question -the right of the National Government to take this property, or touch those persons, being admitted, we may proceed to discuss how, and when, they may be taken, under another principle, with less reserve. I beg, then, to ask, what is the eminent domain of sovereignty; and would earnestly inquire whether writers on public law do not lay down the position as broadly and comprehensively, that all persons are subject to the power of Government as well as all property. Vattel, book 1, ch. 20-" The State could not subsist, or constantly administer the public affairs in the most advantageous manner, if it had not the power to dispose, occasionally, of all kinds of property, subject to its authority. It is even to be presumed, that, when the nation takes possession of a country, the property of certain things is given up to individuals only with this reserve. The right which belongs to the society, or to the sovereign, of disposing, in case of necessity, of and for the public safety, of all the wealth contain ed in the State, is called the eminent domain. It is evident that this right is, in certain cases, necessary to him who governs, and constantly, is part, of this empire of sovereign powers," &c. Now, Sir, let us turn to another page, and see what the same writer has said, in respect to the power of Government over persons. In treating of war, book 3, ch. 2-" Every citizen is bound to defend the State as far as he is capable. Society cannot otherwise be maintained; and this concurrence for the COMMON DEFENCE is one of the principal objects of every FEB. 7, 1828.] Case of Marigny D'Auterive. [H. OF R. admit that it should be necessary for us to carry on mili- the Federal compact. An unqualified grant of power tary operations in the West Indies. American blood has gives the means necessary to carry it into effect. This been shed there. You will remember, Sir, the attack on is an universal maxim, which admits of no exception." Havana, where many American lives were sacrificed. In True, the plan proposes only to take "the free male poeither case, whether at Vera Cruz, in any portion of the pulation.” If others are exempted, it is evidently only Gulf of Mexico, or in the West Indies, where it might be from expediency, not on grounds of right The princinecessary to send troops, it would, from the peculiar un-ple asserted, includes all, in its broadest and most unhealthiness of the climate, be an awful waste of human limited sense, admitting, "no exception." Such are the life, if Northern soldiers were to be employed. This class doctrines of a distinguished citizen of Virginia, who has of population, under such circumstances, might furnish since been elevated to the highest seat of honor and men whose habits and constitutions would render them confidence in the nation. But let us advance, in this invaluable. The African race make excellent soldiers. examination, a step further. In ten days after this let Large numbers of them were with Perry, and aided to ter was transmitted to Congress, the Committee on Miligain the brilliant victory on Lake Erie. A whole battal-tary Affairs, of which Mr. Troup, recently Governor of ion, at New Orleans, was distinguished for its soldierly ap- Georgia, was chairman, reported a bill for filling the pearance. Docile, obedient, brave, and of great muscular ranks of the regular army. The first section provides for powers, they are admirably adapted for military ser- the classification of the free white male population, as vice. From these considerations I deduce these posi- proposed by Mr. Monroe; the word "white" having being added by the Committee. The section provides, 1. That slaves are not exempt by nature and fitness" That, within days after the classification aforefrom military service. tions: 2. That they are not exempt by the principles of public law. 3. That they are not exempt by usage. 4. That they are not exempt by positive constitutional provisions. bill reported by Mr. Troup exempts the black population, on grounds of expediency, it is fairly to be presum ed, as Mr Monroe, on the same grounds, had exempted, in his plan, the slaves. said, each class shall furnish, for the service of the United States, an able bodied recruit, between the years of eighteen and forty-five, to serve during the war; who shall be delivered to the assessor, or marshal, or his deputy, to be by him delivered to the officer of the United States, authorized by the Department of War, to receive Mr. Speaker, another branch of the subject presents him," &c. Peace came, and the bill, of course, was not itself for consideration. I have said that the exemption finally acted on. But, I deem this letter of Mr. Monroe, contended for, both by the principle on which payment and the bill reported by Mr. Troup, as of very great imis demanded for this slave, and the arguments by which portance in the argument, as they go to show their sentithe demand is sustained, involve questions of the rela-ments of the extent of the war-making power of the Gen. tive sacrifices and sufferings of the South, North, and eral Government. The letter of Mr. Monroe proposes West, in high and dread exigencies of pressing war. to include, in its classification, free male persons: the In this view it is just to inquire, what is the rule claimed to be applied to the whole free population of the country? What right or power has this General Government over the free population, including all the inhabitants of the North and West? What are the doctrines of How, then, stands the claim of right, on the part of this Southern statesmen upon this subject? It is now a Government, as asserted by eminent Southern statesmen, time of peace, and the ship sails smoothly on its mirror over the population of the North and West, under the sea. No burthensome duty, no serious sacrifice, is now war-making power? Is the right claimed that the facalled for. But we cannot fail to recollect that we have ther may be taken-that the widow's son may be taken had wars, and the principles that were then avowed.that the master and the apprentice may be taken-that In 1814, Mr. Monroe, then acting Secretary of War, to the bridegroom, not permitted the exemption of the fill the ranks of the army, brought forward his celebrated Jewish law, may be forced from the arms of his newly plan of classification or conscription. In that plan he wedded bride-not enlisted-not taken by consent-but proposes: "Let the free white population of the U. forced into the service-taken by conscription-for the States, between eighteen and forty five years, be formed year, and the year in advance-not by consent, but by into classes, of 100 men each, and let each class furnish force-placed under martial law-under officers not of four men for the war, within thirty days after the classi their choice, but strangers to them-marched to the fication, and replace them in the event of casualty. swamps of Florida, or to the Rocky mountains! Is Again, "If any class fails to provide the men required such the claim over the whole inhabitants of the free of it, within the time specified, they shall be raised by States, and is it insisted that there exists a class of privi draft on the whole class." In support of this plan, Mr. leged persons, elsewhere, wholly exempt from this dread Monroe says: 66 Congress have a right, by the Constitu- power? The points now discussed, are not points of extion, to raise regular armies, and no restraint is imposed pediency, but of naked, dread, sovereign power. Sir, I in the exercise of it, except in the provisions which are do not think gentlemen ought to press us to settle this intended to guard, generally, against the abuse of power, great question. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. with none of which does this plan interfere. It is pro- When the time comes that the matter must be settled, posed that it shall operate on all alike that none shall let it then be met by those whose imperious duty it may be exempted from it, except the Chief Magistrate of the be. It does not seem to me that any such necessity now United States, and the Governors of the several States." exists. Why should we be pressed to make concessions, "It would be absurd to suppose that Congress could not directly or indirectly, that this exemption exists? It ap carry this plan into effect, otherwise than by accepting pears to me it would be unjust to the North and West, the voluntary services of individuals. It might happen that such principle of exemption should be established. that an army could not be raised in that mode, whence By letting this bill rest, nothing is lost on either side; the power would have been granted in vain. The safe-no principle is settled. To urge this matter, and to ty of the State might depend on such an army." Again, press the principles on which this bill is supported, are "The idea that the United States cannot raise a regular calculated to sow the seeds of bitterness far and wide. army in any other mode than by accepting the voluntary services of individuals, is believed to be repugnant to the uniform construction of all grants of power, and equally so to the first principles and leading objects of If the North and West have given themselves up, with out limit, to the General Government, for the purpose of war, is it indeed true that the South has reserved a part, a large portion, of her population, from that power? Is H. OF R.] Case of Marigny D'Auterive. [FEB. 7, 1828. clause could have been ratified? I presume there can be but one voice in reply. the right to a man's slave more sacred than the right to himself? Is the claim of the Southern master over his slave of a more sacred nature than that of a father to What, then, Mr. Speaker, is the true principle which his son, or master to his apprentice? I do not compare governs the case? I apprehend it to be this: That, for the slave to the son or apprentice; but I contend that the safety of all, all owe personal services, in case of the slave is entitled to no pre-eminence or exclusive pri- necessity. This is the supreme, pervading law of civil vilege. What is the connexion of master and slave? society. All contracts are made, and all relations in so. How is it founded, that it should be of so superior a sa-ciety exist, subordinate to this general, all pervading, credness and character? The master and the appren- supreme law. The master takes his apprentice, as he tice are connected by relations founded in justice, mu- exists himself, subject to this silent, but ever existing tual utility, and the general good. The master may have principle. All persons exist subject to it. The master taken the lad when young, poor, ignorant. He may himself is not exempt, and holds his slave under the dohave fed him, clothed him-nursed him in sickness, in- minion of this supreme rule. Supreme, because it is ne structed him at vast expense, to be useful. At the age cessary for the safety of the State. In the language of of eighteen, when the mind begins to expand, and the Mr. Monroe, "there is no exception." I am now speakform has gained the strength of manhood-just at the ing of naked power and absolute right. In practice moment when the apprentice has become useful, and is there are many exceptions, claimed upon principles of able to repay the master for his care and expenditures the most impressive character, of the highest expedienin his behalf, you come in and take him into the public cy. Women are excepted; those of advanced or tenservice. Is not the master's claim sacred to his services? der age. Persons conscienciously scrupulous of bearing Is it not consecrated by mutual agreement-common in arms; ministers of the Gospel; judicial officers; perterest-the public good, and the sanction of law? Is sons whom it would be dangerous to arm. In the or not the master impoverished by the loss of his services, dinary course of things, there is not much difficulty in as much as the master of a slave, by his loss? Do you practice. Mr. Speaker, I would be among the last to pay for the apprentice if he be slain in battle? Where- violate that manifest law of prudence which makes it inin is the right of the slaveholder, by moral or legal obli- expedient to look to slaves, on ordinary occasions, for gation, more just than that of the master of an appren- soldiers. There is no feeling in my breast towards the tice? You claim the right to take, by force, into your South but that of kindness. I would neither injure their service, the only son of the widow. In lonely sorrow feelings nor encroach upon their rights. Pennsylvanians, she has raised him by daily toil, from an infant, cheered under our gallant Wayne, have marched to the defence by the hope that, with filial piety, he would requite her of the South, shed their blood freely, and would, if neceskindness, and sustain her declining years. Neither tears sary, do so again. War always brings cases of indivinor prayers avail-she has no means of providing a sub-dual hardship and private loss, which the Government stitute. He falls, or returns wasted and broken by dis- cannot redress or assume. It is a rule of war, if an eneease, a burthen, instead of a blessing to her old age. Is my get possession of your town, and, in retaking it, you it your doctrine that he may be forced into the army, and destroy the house of a citizen, though your own act, the that there are, in another quarter, near half a million of Government is not liable to make good the loss. In my able bodied men, withheld from your power-too sacred judgment, the Committee of Claims acted with great wis. for the reach of your laws, wholly exempt from the duties | dom in rejecting the claim for the negro, in the prudent of defence? Payment for a slave, killed in battle, can be terms of their report. claimed as property, only on the ground, that Government has no power over his person, as it claims to have over all other persons, for the common defence. If Government has such power, then the slave must, of course, follow the condition of all other persons, and is no more a charge to your Treasury, if slain, than other soldiers, the loss of many of whom, in a pecuniary point of view, would be infinitely more heavily felt. : In conclusion, Sir, I cannot give my sanction to the principle which would take the farmer and mechanic of Pennsylvania to defend a Southern city from an invad. ing er.emy, risking poverty and death in your defence: and if one of your slaves in the battle shall be slain, that you may send the tax gatherer to such farmer and me. chanic, if he should chance to survive, demanding of him aid in payment for such slave. I cannot admit the doctrine that all slaves who may fall in defending the homes of their masters are of right a charge upon the public treasury. If this doctrine of exemption be correct, then have you power to arrest the whole productive labor of the North and West: for there your authority, as set forth Mr. BARNARD succeeded, and spoke to the followby Southern Statesmen, is absolute and unlimited; while ing effect; I must now ask the indulgence of the House a large portion of the productive industry of the South, while I explain, as briefly as I am able, the reasons is sacred from your touch. Will it be maintained, as a that will govern me in my vote on the bill for the principle in your Constitution, that all the laborers of the relief of D'Auterive. Perhaps I should have done this free States, without any exception, in the high and dread when the subject was in Committee of the whole, or exigencies of war, may be called from their employment: before the House, on the amendment of the gentleman the loom still; the anvil silent; the plough rusting in the from Louisiana, [Mr. GURLEY.] Sir, I was about to do furrow the fields barren and unproductive; while four- so immediately before the question was taken on that fifths of the laborers of the South are at their peaceful amendment, and should have done so, could I have sumemployment, undisturbed by the din of war; your South- moned to my aid assurance enough to rise for discusern fields waving with rich harvests; wealth flowing in a sion amid the loud and repeated calls of" question," thousand streams into the laps of their masters? These which came from every part of the House. As it is, I are solemn questions to us, deeply affecting our interests. cannot record my vote against the claims of D'AuteSir, I deprecate this discussion, and regret that it should rive, as I feel myself compelled to do, without accomhave been forced upon us. But in behalf of the farmer, panying that vote with my reasons for it. Gladly would and manufacturer, and mechanics, whom I represent, II relieve myself from the labor of addressing the House, do protest against the establishment of the doctrines con- and the House from the trouble of hearing me; and I tended for. Varying the remark of a gentleman, who would do so, could I refer to the remarks of any gentlespoke a few days since, let me ask: Suppose it had been man who has, at any time, taken the floor against this proposed, when the Constitution was formed, by those claim, as comprehending and explaining, with sufficient who held slaves, that they should be represented, but accuracy, the view which I entertain of the subject. be wholly exempt from the duties of defending the soil, But I cannot. And I must now add another, [Mr. Mihowever great the emergency; think you, Sir, such a NER who had just taken his seat] to the number of those who have addressed the House against this claim, with : [H. OF R. In the first place then I have not understood distinctly whether all who have advocated this claim, contend for the legality of impressment-I mean of property: for I shall speak of the impressment of men by and by. And while I am now talking of impressment, I beg to be understood as meaning the impressment of property-I say I do not understand that all the friends of this bill contend for the legality of impressment. Το such as do, for the purpose of this argument, I admit its legality. To such as hold the contrary doctrine, as being necessary to the success of this claim, I admit its illegality. But I owe it to candor to say, that I make these admissions, inasmuch as, in my view, it is totally immaterial, because irrelevant, whether the impressment of property be legal or illegal. I agree perfectly with the gentleman from Pennsylvania who has just addressed the House, [Mr. MINER] that, in the discussion of this subject, several questions have been argued very much at length, which are nearly, if not wholly, impertinent and unnecessary. Such, in my opinion, is the question, whether the impress- Again: I believe that most of the advocates of this ment of private property into the public service, by the claim have contended that Warwick was impressed into commander of an army, in time of war, is legal or ille- the service. To such, I concede the fact that he was gal? Such is also the question, whether the evidence impressed. If, however, there are any who prefer to before us shews that this slave went into service by im- put this claim on the ground of contract, to such I conpressment, or by contract with his master? And such, cede the fact that the services of the slave were contractI agree with the same gentleman, is the question, whe-ed for. And I confess, were I the advocate of this claim, ther slaves are or are not property? I should prefer the latter ground. Sure I am, that gentlemen will agree with me that, had the discussion of these questions been avoided, this House would have escaped an excitement which is always to be deprecated. But I am not sure, that, even with these questions untouched, I shall be able to lay my hand so gently upon the subject, as not to wake anew the vibrations of some tender chord-I hope it may not be an angry one. And, whatever opinion may be entertained of the correctness of the view which I am about to present to the House, I earnestly offer this single prayer to the candour and liberality of gentlemen who may not agree with me, that they will do me the justice to believe, that my sentiments on this subject are honest sentiments; that they have been formed af ter the most patient deliberation; and that I cherish them the more, because, though I may find myself deceived, I hold them to be such as ought not to offend the most fastidious holder of this species of property, called slaves. Sir, a just claim presented to this House needs no precedent to support it; and if the claim be not meritori ous, no precedent can sanction it. The better way to judge of this item of claim to which I have referred, as in all similar cases, is to strip it of every embellishment. and to look at it as it stands by itself, in a naked statement of the case. D'Auterive was the owner of a slave called Warwick. In time of war, the commander of an army made a requisition for assistance in throwing up defences, in the face of the enemy. Under this requisition, Warwick was put to service, and, while in that service, received two wounds from the enemy's guns one in the eye, the other on the arm; by means of which, his value to his master was, and is, lessened two hundred dollars. This is a plain and simple statement of the case; and upon it arises this plain and simple question-shall the Government pay the master the damages which he has sustained, through the personal injury done to his slave? Again To the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. EVERETT] and whom I am proud to call my friend, and from whom I am sorry to differ in opinion on this or any other subject-to him I concede that slaves, so far as the law makes them property at all, are a species of property within the meaning of the fifth article of the amendment of the Constitution; which declares" that private property shall not be taken for pubJic use without just compensation." Again I admit, cheerfully, unreservedly admit-and in accordance with my real sentiments, as well as for the sake of the argument-that slaves are property. I admit it, both as an abstract proposition, and as a practical fact. I admit it, too, for the precise reason given by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. RANDOLPH] who addressed the House in the early stage of the debate on this subject, "that that is property which the law makes property:" and of course I admit, not only that slaves are property but that they are precisely that kind and quality of property which the law constitutes them and no other. It will be observed, then, that, though I admit these important facts and principles, namely: that slaves are property, as constituted by law; that private property cannot be taken for public use, without just compensation; that this slave was impressed into the public service; and that the impressment of property is so far legal that it ought to be paid for; yet, with all these admissions, in my humble judgment, we have not advanced one step towards the affirmative of the question, whether the Go.. vernment ought to pay the master for the damage he has sustained through the personal injury done to his slave. Sir, I have had occasion to remark before, but on a very different subject, and I am not sure that the remark, even then, was original with me, that names are not things; and we often deceive ourselves when we imagine them to be so. Property is a word of familiar import; and whenever the word is pronounced in any man's hearing, he instantly, and unconsciously attaches to it a very comI am not aware that any one can object to any want of mon idea. The very book from which, in his infancy, he fairness in making the statement, or putting the ques- learned his alphabet, was his book- his property. The tion. And, in order to disembarrass the question of toys with which he amused his boyhood were his properevery thing which is not essential to its decision, so as to ty; his watch in his pocket is his property; his house is leave it, if possible, to be determined by one individual his property; his horse is his property; and over all this, consideration, I propose to begin by making to gentle-"his property," he has known and felt-aye felt-that men who advocate this claim certain important admis- his authority was absolute. Not only the use of it was his, sions, for the sake of the argument-some of which will but the thing itself—the very body of the property was accord with my real sentiments, and some of which will his. If his mood were generous, he could give it away; not; and I shall endeavour to accommodate these admis- if thrifty, he could sell it; if passionate, he could destroy sions to the views of such gentlemen, however various it; break his toys in pieces, burn up his house, and blow and unsettled those views may be among themselves. out the brains of his horse. For, let me respectfully sug H. or R.] Case of Marigny D'Aulerive. [FEB. 7, 1828. served only now to consume a portion of that bread which formerly the sweat of his brow had moistened—an operation which would soon bring the slave population within sufferable limits, and, if necessary, to the point of extermination. Let me not be misunderstood. I put forth this idea merely in illustration of a fact; and surely no one will be so unjust as to impugn my motives, when I add my solemn conviction and belief, that slaves in this country are universally treated by their masters with the ut most humanity and kindness. gest to the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. BRYAN] and were there really no distinction between this and that though the common law would punish a man for the every other species of property, I could see no necessity abuse of his beast, yet it would not do so because it for Colonization Societies, Nobody, I believe, would cares for the life of that beast, or because the owner has think of colonizing cattle, for the mere purpose of get not absolute power over its being, but simply because an ting rid of the overstock; we would kill them off, and exhibition of wanton cruelty is offensive to public morals, burn up their carcasses. And those slave holders who and of "evil example to all others in like cases offend- complain of slave population, and its increase, as an evil, ing." A man may not burn his own house in the night if slaves were precisely such property as cattle, would not time, and when it is inhabited, or at any time when it may think of colonizing the surplus of this population. Noendanger the property of others; but with some such ex- they would send forth, and slay all the children, “ from ceptions he may, because it is his property; so a man two years old and under," and repeat the operation as of may destroy his own horse, because it is his property, ten as there were children to slay, regardless of the "la. taking care to avoid wantonness and cruelty in the execu-mentation in Rama ;" and they would knock every old tion. And, with such ideas of property as I have describ-man on the head, who had not only become useless, but ed, dwelling in the mind, we give our assent to the proposition that slaves are property, which they certainly are, without once adverting to the distinction between them and "the beast that perisheth." And when we speak of slaves as property, we deceive ourselves, by a name, if we imagine them to be property precisely in the same sense in which the ox and the horse are property. Some gentlemen seem to have thought that the fact that slaves are entitled to certain civil rights-meaning, I suppose, security of life and person, for I know of no other-proves that they are not property. Or, rather, per- I have now explained my view of the creature called a haps, the argument was, that they are not always pro- slave. He is the property of his master, and precisely perty, but sometimes persons. Now I hold them to be such property as the law makes him, and no other. I always property, and always persons. And that they are look upon him as having, and always having, two distinct entitled to certain civil rights, is only the consequence of qualities, which are consistent with each other, if for no another fact, which I conceive lies at the foundation of other reason, because the law makes them so the quali the real distinction between this and every other species ty of the property, and the quality of humanity. I use of property; and that fact is, that they are reasonable hu- this latter term as signifying his nature, not his temper. man beings; and I use this expression in the same sense And, wherever these qualities come in collision, the in which it is used in the legal definition of homicide, quality of humanity is the paramount quality, for the reawhich is, "the killing of a reasonable human being." So son that both nature and the law make it so, and the far, therefore, as they are animals, capable of bearing quality of property must yield to it. In other words, burthens, and performing service, they are property, although the slave is the absolute property of the master, ways property; absolutely property. And at the same yet the master must always so use his property in the time, as reasonable human beings, they are men, always slave, as not to violate his quality of human nature. And men; absolutely men.-Here then is the important dis- the enjoyment of this species of property is, and always tinction. The slave is your property, but the life of the must be, subject to the immunities of the slave as a buman slave is the property of him who gave it, and who made being. I am not aware that any master can contend for the slave, and not you, the tenant in possession of it. You more. may exact the services of your slave; you may keep his person; you may control his actions; you may send him to the end of the world for your profit; you may give him away; you may sell him for his market price; all of which is indubitable evidence that he is your property. But, during all this time, he may carry his life in his hand, and preserve it inviolate. If you inflict a wanton injury on his person, you must answer it to the laws of your country; and if you go farther, and touch his life, you must pass from an unenviable exaltation here~I mean that of the gibbet-to answer for the offence hereafter at the bar of an unerring Judge. " Says the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. RANDOLPH] "that which the law makes property, is property.' Well; and that which is made property by the law, and not otherwise, which, as property, is the creature of the law, is precisely such property as the law makes it to be. When the law constituted slaves property, it sanctioned the distinction existing in nature between this and every other species of property; and as it found them reasonable human beings, it left them so, and extended its protection to their lives and members. Sir, the law, like the grave, is a mighty leveller, at least in this country. It puts no difference between the life of the master, and the life of the slave. It sets no price upon either, because both are above, and equally above, all price. And, to guard every possible avenue of approach to that which is so dear to it-the life-it has set the same stamp of inviolability on the person of the slave from wanton attack, as it has on the person of the master. Were it otherwise, Now, what are the immunities of the slave? Security of life, and inviolability of person from wanton injury; and the right of property in him is always to be exercised by the master, or by any body else, in subjection to these immunities. And, hence, I affirm, that the master cannot, by contract, put his slave into the service of the country, in the face of an enemy, against his will; nor can any officer of the Government impress the slave into such service. Sir, I shall enter into no argument on the subject of impressment. I cannot agree with the gentleman who has just set down, [Mr. MINER] in his remarks on this point. If the laws of war justify the impressment of property, on which I now give no opinion, they do not justify the impressment of men. I do not understand the report read by the gentleman to whom I have just alluded, as claiming any such power. That report claims that the Government by a law of Congress, can, if necessary, call out the whole physical force of the country; but not that men may be impressed into the public service without the warrant of law. But, on this subject, I shall content myself, by leave of the honorable gentleman from Rhode Island, [Mr. BURGES] with a reference to that gentleman's unanswerable demonstration, that however it may be with property, men cannot be impressed simply adding, that they cannot be impressed, because of the inviolability of person and life; and this inviolability belongs equally to the slave and the master. : |