B. IV. H eater, Proprietor.] VOLUME 9. THE STAR OF TUE NORTH IS PUBLISIIEU EVERY WEDNESDAY MORNINU BV It. IV. WKAVKIt, tOVFICK—Up stairs, in the neio brick build ing, on the south side o) Main Street, third sijnare below Market. Kit SI B:—Two Dollars per annum, if paid within six months from the time of sub scribing ; two dollars and fifty cents if not paid within the year. No subscription re ceived for a less period than six months; no • discontinuance permitted until all arrearages are paid, unless at the option of the editor. Apveiitisements not exceeding one square will be inserted three times for One Dollar, and twenty five cents for each additional in eeition. A liberal discount wilt be made lo those who advertise by the year. ®ljc Drci) Scott ffiasc. MINORITY REPORT OF HON. WILLIAM H.WELSH, IN THE SENATE OP PA., Fmm the Selcit Committee to which was referred the Resolutions relative to the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Died Scott case. The undersigned, members of lite select committee to which was relerred the resolu tions relative lo the decision ol the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott ease, uot agreeing with the opinions aud con- elusions of their three colleagues in the re port submitted by them, beg leave to present their views in relation lojlhe qneslion before the committee. Before touching upon the great ptinctples contained in tho decision, the minority ol jour committee deem it both right and prop er to advert lo one or two points which are involveJJiu llie discussion of this subject.— We cannot but express our deep regret, that a hostile attitude has been assumed towards the recent action of the Supreme Coutt ol the United States. Whatever difference of opinion may exist in refdtence to that decis ion, il should receive the respect and sanc tion ol all law-abiding citizens, until the same breath that gave il existence shall pro nounce its principles ertoneous and its doc trines untenable. To "repudiate" it—to say that it is "inoperative as law"—and to pro claim its authors "dictatorial," "tyrannical," and "unworthy of confidence and respect, 'i cannot but be iegarded as stsrlling propose tions in the candid estimation of all who view that Court as the great conservative ele ment in our government, and the constitution al protector of the rights and liberties ol the people. Such terms are, at least, of question able propriety .'-Then boldness is only equal led by their utter fallaciousness. Instead of attempting to weaken the influence of the ju diciary by assailing it with hollow and un meaning declamation, we should endeavor to throw around it the broad and ample shield of public confidence. While il is acknowl edged as one of the co-ordinate branches of our government, it must be considered su preme in the enunciation of law and sacred in the assertion of authority. In the past its binding force lias been the oil- which has calmed the troubled waters and quieted the siotmy se of fanaticism; and m the luture, il the hand of narrow sectionalism should be raised to break down the barriers erected to protect the Constitution, the iiiheienl strength contained within that Court of last resort, will be found to be of sufficient power to re sist and overcome all the assaults that may % l be aimed at the common liberties of more ihau twenty-five millions of white freemen. — * Viewing jl ill the light just indicated, we feel called upon by an imperative sense of duty, most earnestly to deprecate all efforts to bring its decisions into disrepute, or to rob il of that potential sway which has hitherto made it the true couservator of our national freedom. IThe minority of our committee, also beg leave to call in question the propriety of a State Legislature attempting to review the ac tion of the Supreme Court of iho United States. It must be patent to every one that such a course is entirely fulilw-snd without aiTy fiWrtWrbfTecl'. No praolioal results, or positive benefit, can, in any way, acctue to the parties-raising tucb an issue. The pow ers of a State Legislature and the functions iff the United States judiciary are settled and distinct in their nature. They can never come in conflict. Entirely independent of each other, they have their separate and determin ed sphere of operations. This legislature was not chosen by the people of Pennsylva nia to engage in useless discussions upon questions which, under its roost extended privileges, should never arise upon this floor. They have no business here. This is not the proper forum for their consideration, and rais ing the question of "jurisdiction," we confi dently assert, that if the "opinions and dec larations" of the Supreme Court be, as is al- V leged, "extra judicial," in a greater degree is the action of the majority of the commit tee, extra-legislative. They propose no mea sure that can affect that court—they assume no authority to resist or oppose its decisions —they ask no legislation that would, in any manner, cure the evils of which they so loudly complain. While we cannot refuse ihem the luxury of lamenting over the de cision of that tribunal, we most emphatical ly deny their right in a legislative capacity to interfere with its action or to controvert its opinions. Tbe greatest criminal in the land may bewail his sentence, but r.o one will I pretend to say it is his prerogative to arraign the Judge who condemned bim. The reso lutions submitted by the majority must, there fore, be regarded as "void" aud altogether "inoperative as law." The legislature of Pennsylvania may enact them, and every day replace them on her statute books. Tbe voice of dauunciation may echo through her halls and go out upon the wings of the wind THE STAR OP THE NORTH. lo (he people of ihia Commonwealth. The suppressed cry of resistance may be heard, and even the atrong arm of lawless faction may be lifted in defiance of the constitution al authority of that Court. Yet it will still survive, and be proudly looked u pott as the guardian of the peopled rights, long after its assailants have passed icto oblivion. Afar from scufiling partisans, unnwed by the res tive murmurs of reckless demagogues, and unaeduced by the blandishments of place or power, that fearless and independent judici. ary, which has always been the glory of our free and happy country, will still continue to perform its acknowledged constitutional functions and enunciate those great princi ples of government upon which our nation al fabric was founded. Il is not our purpose, in thus expressing our views and opinions, to attempt a vindication of the Supreme Court of the United States, or its decision. We feci satisfied that time will prove the soundness of the Istter, as well as the wisdom ol its authors. Believing, however, that the majority report does not present the case which originated this dis cussion in a fair and proper light, it becomes our earnest duty to examine, as briefly as possible, the important question introduced into this body by the resolutions now under consideration. What ure the facts in this case? The rec ord shows the following : "Dr. Kmmerson, a surgeon 111 the army of the United Slates, while stationed at Jefferson barracks in the year 1834, held a negro slave, named Dred Scott, under the laws of Missouri. It) that year, Einmerson took Scott from Missouri to the military post at lluck Island, ir. the free Stale of Illinois, and held hi.it there as a slave till 1836. At the time last mentioned, Scott was removed by his master to the mil itary post at Fort Snelling, in the Territory of Minnesota, situated on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the Territory known as the Upper Louisiuna, acquired by the United States from France. In the year 1835, Major Taliaferro, of the United States army, took a female slave, named Harrier, to Fort Snelling, the military post before mentioned, and sold her to Dr. Kmmerson, and in the following year she married the said Scott with the consent and approbation of his master. Two children, Eliza and Lizzie, were the fruits of that marriage—the one born on board the steamboat Gipeey, north of the north line of the State of Missouri, on the Mississippi river, and the other at JefTer son barracks, in Missouri. In 1838, Dr. Em merson removed Scott and his wife and daughter, from Fort Snelling, back to the Stale of Missouri where they have since re sided, and where their second cbild, Lizzie, was born. Before the commencement of this suit, Dr. Kmmerson sold nnd conveyed lira said Dred Scott and his family, to Mr. J. F. A. Sanford, as slaves, under the IQCUI law ol Missouri, who subsequently left that State and look up his residence in New York. The record, also, shows that at certain times Mr. Sanford, claiming to be the owner of said Scott and his family, laid his hands upon the latter and imprisoned them, doing in this re spect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves." After Sanford's removal to New York, Scott instituted a suit against him in St. Lou is county, Missouri, in the Circuit Court of the United States, under the judiciary act of 1789, in the form of an action at common law, for trespass vi el armis and false impris onment. The Court decided the suit again6l the plaintiff, and on an appeal the case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. After an able and elaborate argu ment on both sides, the opinion of the Court, sustaining the Court below, was delivered by Chief Justice Taney, and concurred in by five of his colleagues—namely: Justices Wavne, Catron, Grier, Daniel and Campbell. It is a source of much regret that we have not before us an authorized copy of the opin ion, and in its absence we are compelled to take the report as it appeared in the daily journals. Upon an examination of that de cision we discover two leading points, viz : First. That Degroes, whether slaves or free—that is, men of the African race—are not citizens of the United States within the meaning df the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. Second. That the legal condition of a slave is not affected by bis temporary sojourn in any other State in this confederacy; but on his return-into a slave Slate, his former condition of slavery, to all intents and pur poses, re-attaches to him. 1. The first point decided is one of vast importance to the people of this Union, and cannot fail to exeit a powerful influence throughout the United Slates. In the major ity report we find this proposition stigmatized as "novel and startling," and "contrary to ail past history and judicial precedent." This assumption we hold to be entirely unfounded, and assert that our "past history" establishes just the reverse. In sustaining this position tbe Chief Justice argues the question in tbe following manner: " They who framed the Declaration of In dependence were men of too muoti honor, education and intelligence to say what they did not believe; and they knew that m no part of the civilized world were the negro race, by common consent, admitted to the rights of freemen. They spoke and setei according to the practices, doctrines and usages of the day. That unfortunate race was sapposed to be reparoled from the whites, and was never thought or spoken of except as property. These opinions under went no change when the Constitution was adopted. Tbe preamble sets forth for what purpose and for whose benefit il was form ed. It was formed by the people—such as BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PA., WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1857. had been members of the original States, and the great object was to 'secure the bles sings of liberty to ourselves and our poster ity.' It speaks in general terms of citizens and people of the United States when pro viding lor the powers granted, without de fining what description of persons should be included or who should be regarded as citi zens. But two clauses of the Constitution point lo the negro race as separate, and not regarded as cttizgns, for whom the Constitu tion was adopted. One clause reserves the right to import slaves until 1808, and tn the second, the Stiles pledge themselves one to another, to preserve the rights of the master, and to deliver up slaves escaping to their re spective territories. By the first olause, die right to purchase and hold this properly is directly sanctioned and authorized by the persons who framed the Constitution, for twenty years; and the States pledged them - selves to uphold the right ol the master as long as the government then formed shad endure. And this shows, conclusively, that another description ol persons was embraced ill lite provisions of the Constitution. These two clauses were not intended lo confer upon them, or their posterity, the blesssings of lib erty so carefully conferred upon the whiles. None of this class ever emigrated to the United States voluntarily. They were all articles of merchandize. The number eman cipated were as few compared with those who were held in slavery, and not sufficient ly numerous to attract attention as a separate class, and were regarded as a part of the slave population, rather than free." J This line of argument hss not been met and controverted by the majority of your com-1 initteo. It is clear and conclusive that ours was designed to be a government of trMe men. It was not intended by its founders that any other class, or race, should ever be permitted lo control its destinies. The inlcr miiigling of races upon our soil—a soil won by the blood of white men—is so repugnant to "reason and humanity," that we cannot view it ir. any other light thnn monstrous. — The infusion of mixed blood into the veins of our people, would bring innumeruble evils in its train. The health, the vigor, and the intellectual strength that characterize the population now gathered together upon our shores, would be lost and destroyed by the inevitable degeneracy flowing from a degrad ing and heterogeneous amalgamation. The distinctive tastes and habits and degree of refinement ol the white and colored races wouUi be mingled in inextricable contusion, and the acknowledged superiority of the for mer, as the revolting process of admixture continued, would silently disappear in tho same proportion as. the corrupting element of the latter instilled itself into tho blood of our descendants. To piotect ourselves and our posterity from such alarming results, we must carefully guard against tho causes which would certainly produce them. This can only be dune by placing a barrier, wide and impassable, between the two races now in conflict ; and such we hold to be the true merit of the recent decision of the Court, which, in its future application and develop ment, will amply shield us from the dangers lo which we have adverted. However much we may regret the unfortunate condition of the colored race, we cannot, in our examina tion of a question fraught with so much inter est, lose sight of the great truth that "self preservation is the first law of nature." | To admit the citizenship of the negro, is to 1 place him, without limitation, upon the same equality with the white man. Its ultimate effect would be to witness the African and his descendants blustering around the polls in the exercise of the same icestimable privileges now enjoyed by the great Cau casian race, and perhaps a few yoais would exhibit the startling spectacle of colored rep resentatives occupying the same seats now so respectably filled by the majority of the committee. Such a state of things would be full of perils to our common country, snd was never contemplated by the fathers of the republic. The Articles of Confedera tion, adopted by the thirteen original States, at a time when emancipated negroes were "not sufficiently numerous to attract atten tion as a separate olass," but "were regard ed as a part of the slave population," con tains the following article. ART. IV. "TOO belter to secure and per petuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different Slates, in this Union, the FREE inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugi tives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE citi zens in the several Stales; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and egress to and from any o'her Stats, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, im positions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such re strictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal ot PROPERTY imported into any State, to any other Stale of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposi tion, duties or restriction shall be land by any Siale on the property of the United States, or either of them." When the foregoing article was adopted, the negro was essentially regarded in ill the Slates as merchantable property. The word 'free' there use, was intended to embrace, exclusively, the then existing white popula tion, and in ils application was not designed to inolude any other class of people. The won! 'property,' as employed in the Artiolee of Confederation, olearly covered the negro, and at that time, within ita true inlant and meaning, he was recognised as an "article of merchandize." The adoption ol the Con stitution, in 1789, wrought no change what- Truth and Right €od and our Country. ever in the meaning of the words "free" and "property," or in the peculiar status of tho African. As has been indicated by the Chief Justice, "but two clauses of the Con stitution point to the negro race"—-the one in reference to the suppression of the slave trade after the year 1808, and the other re- Isiing lo the rights of the master to reoover fugitives from labor. There is not a word or syllable, in that well guarded instrument, which coolers the high attributes of citizen ship upon tho colored race. This position is no new or "novel" one, as has been strangely asserted in the majority report.— It was first officially promulgated in 1812, by William Wirt, when Attorney General of the United States, more than a quarter of a century before tho Dred Scott decision ex cited the attention of the people. The ques tion arose uyon the construction of the navi gation laws of the United States, which re quire that masters of vessels shall be citizens. In view of this statute, a difficulty arose in tho Treasury Department, as tn whether a free negro of Virginia could be place'd in command of a vessel; and the point was submitted to Mr. Wirt for his decision. In answer lo the inquiry, he replied, officially, as follows: "I presume that the description, 'citizens of the United Slates,' used in tho Constitu tion, has the same meaning that it had in the several acts of Congress passed under the authority of the Constitution; otherwise there will arise a vagueness and uncertainty in our laws which will make their execution, if uot impracticable, at least extremely diffi cult and dangerous. Looking to the Consti tution as the standard of meaning, it seems very manifest that no person is included in the description of citizen of tho United States who has not the full rights of a citizen in the Slate of his residence. Among other proofs of this, it will be sufficient lo advert to the constitutional provision, that the citi zens of each Slate shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several Statos. "Now, if a person born and residing in . Virginia, but possessing none of the high characteristic privileges of a citizen of the Stale, is nevertheless a citizen of Virginia, in the sense of tho Constitution, then, on his removul to another State, he acquires ull tho immunities and privileges of a citizen of that Stale, although ho possessed none of tltern in the State of his nativity, e consequence which certainly could not have been in the . contemplation of the convention. Again: ilie only qualification by the constitu tion to render a person eligible as President, Senator, or Representative of the United States is, that he shall be a 'citizen of the United States' of a given age and residence. Free negroes and mulaltoes can satisfy the requisitions of age and residendetas well as the white man; and if nativity, residence and allegiance combined (without the rights and privileges of a white man) are sufficient to make him a 'citizen of the United States' in the sense of the Constitution, then free ne groes and mulaltoes are eligible to those high offices, and may command the purse and sword of tho nation. "For these and other reasons, which might easily be multiplied, I am of the opinion that the Constitution, by (he description of 'citi zens of the United States,' intended those only who enjoyed the full and equal privi leges of white citizens in tho State of their residence." After further discussing the question, Mr. Attorney General Wirt concludes his opiu ion in the following words: "Upon the whole, 1 am of lite opinion, that free persons of color in Virginia are not citizens of the United Stales, within the in tent and meaning of the acts regulating for eign and coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command veasele." {Opinionsof Attorney's Gen. ofU. S., Vol. I. p. 506, td. 1852. Concurrent with this important decision of the Treasury Department, under the direc tion of the Attorney General, runs the unbro ken action of Ihe Post Office Department of our country. Since the organization of the government by the act of Congress, "no person of color can be engaged in the Post Office oa in the transportation of mail matter." In that branch of the government, the negro, free or bond, hae no constitutional existence, and is not permitted to be employed in any of He ramifications. Not regards Jbyit as a citizen under the Constitution of the United Slates, he is therefore debarred from dis charging any of its various functions. Nor has the State Department been lees decided in its action upon lltie question. The fol lowing official document, in reference to the granting of passports, was addressed to a cit izen of New York, under the direction of the Secretary of State, aud needs on comment fiom the undersigned: DePARTMSKT OF STATE, Washington, Nov. 4, 1856. SIR : Your letters of the 29th ult. and 3d inst., requesting passports for eleven colored persons, have been received, and I am direot ■ed by the Secretary to inform you that the papers transmitted by you do not warrant the department in complying with your request. A passport is a certificate that the person to whom it is granted is s oitiaen of the Uui ted States, and it cin only be issued upon proof of this fact. In the papers vbioh ac company your oommanication there is not satialactory evidence that the persons for whom you request passports are of this de scription. They are represented in your letter as "colored," and described in the affidavits as "black," trora which statements it may be fairly inferred that they are negroes. If this is so, there can be no doubt that they are not citisene of the United States. The question whether free negroes are such citizens, is now presented for the first time, but has repeatedly arisen in the admir ietratiou of both National and State govern ments. (n 1821, a controversy arose as to whether free persons of color were citizens ot the United States within the intent and meaning of the acts of Congress regulating foreign and coasting trade, so as to be quali fied to command vessels; and Mr. Wirt, At torney GeHeral, decided that they were not; and lie moreover held lha words "citizens of the United Slates," were used in the acts ol Congress in the same sense as in the Con stitution. This view is also fully sustained in a recent opinion of the present Attorney General. The judicial decisions of the country are to the same effect. In Kent's Commentaries, vol. 2, p. 277, it is slated that in 1832 Chief Justice Daggett, ol Connecticut,held that free blacks are not "citizens" within the meaning of the term as used in the constitution of the United States ; and the Supreme Court of Tennessee, in the case of the Slate against Claiborne, held the same doctrine. Such be ing the construction of tho Constitution in regard lo free persons of color, it is conceiv ed that they cannot he regarded, when be yond the jurisdiction of the government, as entitled to the lull rights ol citizens ; hut the Secretary directs me to say that though the department could not certify that such per sons are citizens of the United Stales, yet, if satisfied of the truth of the facts, it would give a certificate, that they were born in the United Slates, are free, and that the govern ment thereof would regard it to bo iisdtily lo protect them if wronged by a foreign govern ment while within its jurisdiction lor a legal aud proper purpose. I am, sir, respectfully, Your obedient servaftt, J. A. THOMAS, Aes't See. 11. 11. KICK, New York city. The several ucls of Congress in reference lo lire naturalization of foreigners, exhibit Ihe same sealed and determinate policy. Under their provisions 110 negro, or his descendants, can be naturalized, or be made citizens of the United Stales. The words of Ihe first act of Congress, passed but a few months after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and sanctioned by the approval of George Wash ington, are as follows: "Any alien, being a free while person, may become a citizen," &c. The act of 1795 uses the following lan guage : "Any free while person may become a citizen," &.c. The act of 1798, signed by Jotin Adams, and that of 1802, approved by Thomus Jefferson, make use of tfie same spe cific language ; arid the subsequent enact ments of Congress, passed in 1813 and 1824, indicate precisely the same restrictive policy upon the negro race. Chancellor Kent, in his " Commentaries on American f.aw," sustains this point in the following words: " The act ol Congress confines the descrip tion of aliens capable of naturalization, 10 'free white persons.' I presume this excludes the inhabitants of Africa and their descend ants ; and it may becume a question, to what extent persons of mixed blood are excluded, and what shades and degrees of mixture of color disqualify an alien from application for the benefits of the act of naturalization, l'erhaps there might be difficulties also, as 10 the copper-colored natives of America, or the yellow or tawriey races of the Asiatics, and it may well be doubted whether any of them are 'white persons' within the purview of the law."—(2 Kent's Com. Bth Eil. 3ti ) The same distinguished writer says : " In most of the United Slates there is a distinction in respect to the political privile ges, between free while persons and free col ored persons of African blood ; and in no pari of the country, except in Maine, do the latter, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites, in the exercise of civil and political rights."—(2 Kent, Motes, 278.) He then proceeds to examine, st length, the various disabilities under which the ne gro race labor in ihe different States, and aher citing various authorities which prove that, as a general thing, tbey do not possess and enjoy the same privileges and immuni ties belonging to a citizen under the Consti tution of the United States, he employs the following significant language; "The better opinion I should think, was, that negroes, or other slaves, born within and under thn alle giance of the United States, are natural born subjects, but not citizens." (2 Kent, Motes, p. 222.) But we are told that "judicial precedent" is against us, and ''there is no such logic in the books" as will sustain the point at issue, or that "can in any way be tortured into the support of the doctrine, that a colored person cannot be a citizen of any State, or of the United States." Let us see how far we are supported by the authority of the courts. In the year 1838, the Supreme Court of Ten nessee decided end adjudged, that ftee blacks were not citizens within the provisions of the second section of the fourth atticle ol the Con stitution of the United States. (State vs. Clat bomt, 1. Meig's Reps. 331 ) And in the same State, Chief Justice Cetron, in the case of FisJur vs. Dubbs, 6 Ytrgtr's Reps. 119, "gives a strong picture of the degredation of tree ne groes living among whites, without motive and without hope." In the Slate of Connecticut, tho same deci sion is errived el in a case which is thus sta ted by Chancellor Kent in the notes to his Commentaries, *o I. 2, pagt 281: "In Con necticut, by statute, in 1833, any colored per son, not an InßWmant ol the Stale, who shall come to reside there for the purpose of being instructed, may be removed, under the act for the admission and settlement of iuhabi tanta; and it was made penal to set up or establish any acltool or literary institution hi that State, for the instruction of colored per sons not inhabitantsof the Stale, or to instruct or leach in any such school or institution, or to board or harbor, for that purpose, any such person without the previous consent ill wri ting, of the civil authority of the town in which such school or institution might be. In an information under that provision against Prudence Crandall, filed by the public prose cutor, it wss held by Chief Justice Daggett, at the trial in 1833, that free blacks waro not citizens within the meaning of the term, as used in the Constitution of the United Slates." By referring to the case, as reported, we 1 find the subjoined forcibli language used by Chief Justice Daggett. Having presented the act of Assembly under which the information was made, he asks the question : "Does it clearly violu'e the Constitution of the United Slates? The section claimed to have been violated reads as Inflows, lo wit: Art. 4 sec. 2 'The citizens of euch State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities ol oiti/.ens in the several States,' It has been urged, that this section whs made to direct exclu sively the action of the general government, and, therefore, can never be applied lo Stale laws. This is not the opinion of the court. The plain and obvious meuning of this pro vision is to secure lo the citizens of all the Slates the same privileges as are secured to our own, by our own Stute laws. * * The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the meaning of that section of the Constitution of the United States which I have jtii-l read. I.et me begin by pulling I this plain question : Are slaves citizens At the adoption of the Constitution ol the United Slates every State was a iduvu State. 4/ua*tt clmsetls had begun the work of emancipation within Iter borders. And Connecticut, as early as 1784, had euucletl laws making all lhos*4 tree at the age of 2b, who inight hs born within the Slate after that time. We all know that slavery is recognized in that Con stitution ; and it is the duty of this court lo take that Constitution as it is, lor we havs sworn lo support it. Although the term 'sla very' cannot be found written out in the Con- I Dilution, yet no one can tnittake the object ol the 3d section of the 4th article : 'No per son held to service or labor in one Stale, under tlie laws theieof, escaping in another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation there in, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered, upon claim of the parly lo whom such service or labor may be I due. i li The 2d section of the Ist orticle, reads as follows: ' Uepresetimtives and direct taxea ahull be apportioned among the several States which may be included in thie Union, accor ding to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole num ber o( tree persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Intliiins r.ot taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.' The 'other persons' are slaves, and they become the basis of representation, by adding them to the white population in that proportion. Then slaves were not consider ed citizens by the framers of the Constitution. • •*••• " Are Jice blacks citizens 1 It has been in geniously said, that vessels inay be owned and navigated by free blacks, and that the American flag will protect Item ; but you will remember that the statute which makes this provision, is an act of Congress, and not (he Constitution. Admit, if yon please, that Mr. C-ffee, a respectable merchant, has owned vessels, and sailed them under the American flag; yet tbia does not prove him to be such a citizen as the Constitution contemplates But that question stands undecided by any legal tribunal within my knowledge. * * "To my mind it would be a perversion of terms, and the well-known rule oi construc tion, to say that slaves, free blacks or Indiana were citizens, within the meaning of tha 1 term,as used in the Constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degredation ot this race of men ; but I am bound by my duty to 6ay ihey are not citizens."— [Ciandall vs. The State, 10 Connecticut Reps. 2l3.] In June, 1837, the same court laid down a similar doctrine iu the decision of a case adverse to a slave, who had been brought from Georgia to Connecticut. Chiel Justice Williams, although deciding that the slave could not be held in bondage under the It.i loci of the State, was compelled to admit, in referring to the constitution of Connecti cut, that "Slaves cannot be said to be par ties to that compact, [he is speaking ot our social compact,] or to be represented in it. The very definition of a slave, as given in the Louisiana code, shows, that he could not be contemplated as a party to a nation al compact. 'A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs.— The master may sell hira, dispose of his person, his industry and his labor. He can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything, but what must belong to his mas ter.' sso. too, when by another article in the constitution, all colored persons are ex cluded from the privilege ot electors, it would seem as if all such persoos were considered as excluded from the social com pact." And ho savs further ' The Sth section of the bill of rights (of Connecticut) has also been pressed upon us, that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches or seizures.'— This is almost a transcript to the 4th article of the amendments of the United States— Aud the fact that this amendment was adopted at all, and that amidst all the con tiict of opimous upon the subject ot slavery, this clause has never been claimed to affect [Two Dollars per Annua, NUMBER 19. that subject, shows very strongly that it was not intended to apply (o that description of persons. When the preamble to the'con slitution of the United States speaks of 'WT TUB IVOI'LK to secure the bless- liberty to ourselves and our poster ity, do ordain and establish this constitu tion,' it comfit be seriously contended, that it included that eluss of people called slaves; and the term 'people,' injlhe bill of rights, must have been used in a similar sense. The Bth section of the bill of rights, then, cannot bo intended to include slaves. "The 10th section of the bill of rights also provides, that 'no person shall bo arrested, detained, or punished, except in cases clearly warranted bylaw.' And under this the petitioner rests a claim. But this only brings us beck Jto the question, Wtiat de tentions are warranted by law ? If tho power of a master over his slavo is one re cognized by law, then this article in tho bill of rights cannot affect the question be fore the Court. And while this solicitndo lor personal liberty manifested in the Con stitution, makes it our duly to inquire, with great care, whether this detention is clearly warranted by law, well leel bound to do clare, as tho result of our examination of the constitution ol this State, that is pro visions do not, and were not intended, to vary the relation of master and servant, as by law established, at the tune of the adop tion of that instrument. And in this opin ion the court aro unanimous." ( Jackson vi. bullock, 12 Connecticut Reps. 13 .) In Pennsylvania, also, it has been deci ded that 'free blacks' were not citizens un der our former constitution and laws. In tsar, it .■ hold by the Supreme Court of this Slate, (before of our pres- I cut constitution, which contains a' restrnl- I live clause upon negro suffrage, and when the question might have been a mooted one,) that free persons of color did not ful lil the requirements necessary to constitute ! a qualified elector, asd that they did not I come up to the standard of citizenship as i prescribed by our laws, or the Constitution ,of the United States. The case came before ! the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on a ! suit instituted by a free negro against the | officers of an election for denying him the privilege of voting for State officers. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Gibson, and is marked wills that peculiar vigor of thought and cxprcs -1 sion which characterizes all the productions |of that eminent Judge. In his analysis of the case he informs us that: ' About tho ycat 1795, as I have it from James Gibson, Ksq.. of the Philadelphia bar, the very point before us was ruled by the high court of errors and appeals against the right of ne -1 gro suffrage." After establishing the doctrine that free negroes according to usage and prior legis latiott were not freemen within the purview of our constitution, he adds: '•But in addition to interpretation from I usage, this antecedent legislation furnishes j other proofs that no colored race was party jto our social compact. As was justly re : marked by President Fox, in the matter of the late contested election, our ancestors settled the province as a community of white men; and the blacks were introduced into it as a race of slaves; whence an un conquerable prejudice of caste, which ha ! come down to our day, insomuch that a | suspicion of taint still has the unjust effect of sinking the subject of it below the com ] mon level. Consistently with this preju dice, is it to be credited that parity of rank would be allowed to such a race ! Let the j question be answered by the statute of | 1726, which denominated it an idle and i slothful people: which enjoined the magis j trates to bind out free negroes for lazinese ! and vagrancy; which forbade them to hax ' bor Indian or mulatto slaves, on pain of j punishment by fine, or to deal with negro i slaves on pain of stripes; which annexed to ! the interdict of marriage with a white, th penalty of reduction to slavery; which pun | ished them for tippling, with stripes, and i even a white person with servitude for in ' termarriage with a negro. • • • | "I have thought it fair to treat the ques -1 lion as it stands affected by our own munici pal regulations without illustration from those of other States, where the condition of the ra.ee had been still less favored. Yet it ' is proper to say that the second section of ' the fourth article of the Federal Constitution, presents an obs'acle to the political freedom j of the negro which seems to be insuperable. It is to be remembered that citizenship, as I well as freedom, is a constitutional qualiti ! cation : and how tt could be conferred so as I to overbear the laws imposing countless dis- I abilities on him in other States, is a problem l of difficult solution. In ibis aspect the ques ' tton becomes one, not of intention, but of ; power: and of power so doubtful as to forbid J the exercise of it. Every man must lament : the necessity ot the-e disabilities, but sla | very is to be dealt with by those whose ex- I istence depends on the skill with which u | is treated Considerations of mere humanity, ) however, belong to a class with which, as ! Judjpis. we have nothing to do . and inter ; pretuig the Constitution m the spirit of our : institutions, we are bound to pronounce that men of color are destitute of title to the elec - ttve franchise, (ffooos H at. vt. j If jrts, Wi ) la controversion of the spirit of these au thorities, the majority of the committee cite several cases to support their position, and among the number we tind iour taken trorn the decisions of the Supreme Conrt of I the United States, vi* Lee vs. Lee, S Peters, 4t. Walßagsferd vs. Aifeo, 10 Peters, WS;
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers