CONGRESS, U. S. 



357 



to labor and industrial pursuits in the field of 

 agriculture, and in the workshops, who find 

 their markets and the rewards of their toil and 

 of their labor and of their skill in the South, 

 will rise up in earnest protest against any such 

 measure as this. Their voice will be heard be- 

 fore long in this chamber. It will be heard 

 resounding throughout this nation ; and it will 

 be heard in a majesty and strength that will 

 command obedience to it, and it will repress 

 and put down such wholesale measures of con- 

 fiscation, of injustice, of oppression, and ini- 

 quity." 



Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, followed in oppo- 

 sition to the bill in its present form, saying : " I 

 come now, Mr. President, to talk more partic- 

 ularly in relation to another branch of this bill, 

 which is not so obvious perhaps. It seems to 

 me that there is another purpose that is cover- 

 ed up by this pretence of forfeiture or confisca- 

 tion and pi-oceedings in rem, which have really 

 nothing to do with it. When we are commun- 

 ing together, and talking freely, we may as well 

 tell the truth as not. I cannot exactly recom- 

 mend my example in that respect, as the old 

 gentleman did who told his sons that honesty 

 was the best policy, ' because,' says he, ' I have 

 tried it both ways.' Now, the truth is, that 

 there is a large provision in this bill for the lib- 

 eration of slaves, and I am strongly apprehen- 

 sive that the more particular friends of this bill 

 regard that as the bill. Without that, they 

 would care nothing about it. Many of them, 

 I have no doubt, are exactly in that condition. 

 Are you going to have these slaves seized as 

 prize of war? There is no provision of that 

 kind, because you know that what you declare 

 prize of war must be seized during the war ; 

 and if it is not, when the peace comes it escapes, 

 and you cannot take it at all. No ; this provis- 

 ion is made to declare all slaves free without 

 ever taking them. There is no caption of them 

 required. They are not declared prize of war, 

 or required to be proceeded with as such. How 

 is it, then ? They are regarded as property. I 

 do not mean to fall into any objectionable point 

 on that. I do not believe in having property 

 in man any more than anybody else ; but cer- 

 tain it is that the master, as he is called, is ac- 

 knowledged by the Constitution to have an in- 

 terest in the labor and service of his slave. 

 There is an acknowledged pecuniary interest 

 there recognized. It is a pecuniary interest. 

 You propose to get rid of that interest, clear it 

 out, discharge it. Can you do that by a pro- 

 ceeding in rem? I know we made a law at 

 the last session declaring that where slaves 

 were made the instruments of wrong by using 

 them for military purposes in aid of the rebel- 

 lion, they should be free, and that falls within 

 the doctrine, within the principle, I have stated. 

 But nothing of that kind is here. It was not 

 put here purposely, because a proceeding in rem 

 implies that you have possession of the thing, 

 and brought it into court to be adjudicated upon. 

 It is not provided that these slaves are to be 



taken or brought into any court, or in any way 

 adjudicated upon. There is not any proceeding 

 in rem required upon them, nor any other pro- 

 ceeding. If that is not depriving a man of his 

 interest in a slave without any conviction of 

 himself, and without any process of law, and 

 operating as a punishment on him, and yet 

 leaving him to be hanged, I do not understand 

 it. It seems to me to be all that, every particle 

 of it. 



" Again, Mr. President, we have individually, 

 and the Republican party as a party, thrown 

 our creed and articles of political faith before 

 the world. "We have subscribed to them, most 

 of us personally, individually at different stages, 

 and I believe it is not necessary for me to make 

 any personal professions about that. I am still 

 very much inclined to abide by a plighted pub- 

 lic faith, and by private faith too. I cannot 

 but observe that those gentlemen who certainly 

 have been distinguished as much or more for 

 their activity in relation to the subject of sla- 

 very as for anything else, are committed to the 

 creed of the Republican party on this point. 

 Take, for instance, the honorable Senator from 

 Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner). I will read his 

 words. On offering a certain memorial, on the 

 25th of February, 1861, he said: 



I offer this memorial, sir, because I deem it my duty 

 to offer all memorials that are respectful in form, when 

 sent to me ; but in offering it, I take this occasion to 

 declare, most explicitly, that I do not think that Con- 

 gress has any right to interfere with slavery in a State. 



" I do not know that the gentleman has ever 

 spoken in any other way." 



Mr. Sumner: "Never." 



Mr. Collamer : " I have never heard him 

 speak otherwise, and I have generally heard 

 what he had to say. I have been glad to find 

 that this somewhat early and uniform doctrine 

 of our party had not become outlawed by war, 

 and hence I was pleased to hear some Senators 

 who sit near me, and whom I always hear with 

 very great pleasure and respect, make use of 

 the expressions which I am about to read. I 

 will use their language as better expressing the 

 idea than any language I could employ. The 

 honorable Senator from Maine (Mr. Fessenden), 

 in the course of the debate upon the bill for the 

 abolition of slavery in this District, said : 



Mr. President, that the Republican party would re- 

 joice to see slavery abolished everywhere, that they 

 would rejoice if it no longer existed, that they feel it to 

 be a blot upon our fair institutions, and a curse to the 

 country, there is no doubt. I can answer, for one, that 

 has been my opinion always, and I have expressed it 

 here and elsewhere ; but, sir, I have held, and I hold 

 to-day, and I say to-day, what I have said in my place 

 before, that the Congress of the United States, or the 

 people of the United States through the Congress, un- 

 der the Constitution as it exists now, have no right 

 whatever to touch, by legislation, the institution of sla- 

 very in the States wfiere it exists by law, I have said 

 that, and I say it again, boldly ; for my position never 

 has been misunderstood on this subject. 



"The honorable Senator from Ohio (Mr. 

 Sherman), on the same occasion, said : 

 We ought now to abolish slavery in this District. 



