controlling the opinion of the Supreme Court. It is at once made a part of a constitution for an embryo State, and sanctioned by the Administration.

The property qualification under the constitution came before the National Congress in 1848, growing out of circumstances connected with the Florida war.

Twelve years after the massacre of Dade's command, in the Florida war, Antonio Pacheco presented his petition to Congress, setting forth that he had been the owner of a valuable slave, whom he hired as a guide to Dade's company. In its defeat he was captured by the Indians, and afterwards surrendered to General Jessup, by whom he was sent to the Indian country—thus lost to his owner. Congress was invoked to grant full indemnity for the loss thus sustained.

The subject was referred to the Committee of Military Affairs, a majority of whom were favorable to the interests of slavery. Mr. Burt, of South Carolina, chairman of the committee, reported in favor of the claim. A minority report was submitted by Mr. Dickey, of Pennsylvania, which took distinct and unmistakable grounds against the rights of men to hold their fellow men as property under the Federal Constitution. This case furnishes the first instance in which the records of the nation show a minority report from any committee against slavery.*

The minority report was signed by the four Whig members of the committee, while the five Democrats on the committee indorsed the report of Mr. Burt. "So far as the committee were concerned, the five Democratic members assumed the position now occupied by that party, to wit, that under the Federal Constitution, man may

* Giddings' Exiles of Florida.

PROPERTY IN SLAVES.

313

hold, sell, and transfer human beings as property; while the four Whig members based their action upon the doctrine now occupied by the Republican party-that, under our Federal Constitution, men cannot be transformed into brutes; nor can one man hold property in another."*

At the ensuing session the subject came up for consideration, and the discussion was made distinctly on the property question. Mr. Burt declared that to be the only question involved. He would "leave no other loophole for gentlemen to escape." Northern Democrats were not prepared to receive this doctrine. The question was brought to a vote in the committee, and being reported to the House, a motion to lay it upon the table was lost, 66 to 85. The bill was ordered to a third reading without division. On motion to reconsider, Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, gained the floor, and afterward addressed the House, in re ply to Mr. Burt, against the doctrine of property in human flesh under the Federal Constitution. The motion to reconsider was then withdrawn, and the call of the roll proceeded.

Confident of success, and arrogant in their supposed strength, the South had thrust this question upon the House. The recognition of the doctrine involved was essential to the permanence of the slave system; solicitude increased with growing doubts of the result of the vote.

After much delay, the Clerk, a deputy, handed the Speaker the result; for the bill 90, against it 89. During the remarks of the Speaker, Mr. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, preliminary to casting his vote in accordance with the rules of the House, when it would change the result, the Clerk handed up another "corrected count." which stood ayes 91, noes 89. The Speaker thereupon

* Giddings' Exiles of Florida.

declared the bill passed. An examination proved the votes miscounted. The roll gave the vote 89 to 89. It was also found that the name of Mr. Farelly, of Pennsylvania, was not recorded. The record was corrected, and the vote announced, ayes 89, noes 90. The bill was lost. This vote was subsequently reconsidered-ayes 101, noes 95. The bill never came up in the Senate. Though the bill was suffered to rest, the principle involved continued to be agitated, and with its consideration it has grown in magnitude and importance.

Another bill, involving the same principle, came up for discussion in the House, in February, 1852. At this period both parties were striving to hush all discussion of the question of slavery.

This bill was to compensate for loss incurred during the Seminole war. Its passage was opposed on the grounds: 1. Slaves were not plunder. 2. That the officers of Government had no authority to involve the nation in slave-dealing transactions. 3. That those officers were not the Government, and could not bind the people to pay their funds for human flesh.

The subject was discussed at length, and the bill finally passed the House, 79 to 53.

It encountered little opposition in the Senate, and ultimately became a law. Many of the Northern Representatives who cast their votes for the bill, insisted that they did not pass upon the property question, but were controlled in their action by other considerations.

The question of property in man, under the Federal Constitution, constitutes a line of separation, deep and broad, between the two great opposing parties, the Democratic and Republican. The former very generally sustain the affirmative of the question, while the Republicans repudiate it, and affirm that slavery can have exist

PRESIDENTIAL VIEWS ON KANSAS.

315

ence only under positive statutory enactment; that the Constitution in no respect recognizes property in man, but permits that under State laws, slaves may be held as such.

The second session of the thirty-fifth Congress commenced on the 6th day of December, 1858, and continued until March 3d, 1859.

The President's annual Message opens with an exposition of his views on the Kansas question. The doctrine of property in man, in its recognition by the Federal Constitution, as expounded by the Supreme Court, is reiterated, and that whatever is held as property in any of the States may be equally so held in the Territories, is regarded as being "now a well-established position." The English Compromise act for the admission of Kansas is warmly approved; though it would seem that the adoption of the Lecompton Constitution would have better accorded with the wishes of the President. The provision requiring Kansas to wait for admission until the population should equal the ratio requisite for a Repre sentative in Congress, should she reject the English bill, would be just and proper in this instance, and should be made general in its application to the Territories. Excepting, however, any such as acting in good faith on past practices had complied with the requirements and were now ready for admission. Allusion was here had to Oregon, which was admitted as a State during this session.

The long pending controversy between our own and the government of England was happily adjusted; but the complications arising out of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty of 1850, were still in an unsettled state. With Spain, relations were likewise in a disturbed condition. The same was true of several of the Central American nations.

The finances of the Government were far from being in a satisfactory condition. The $20,000,000 of Treasury notes issued by the act of December 23d, 1857, and the additional loan ordered June 14, 1858, of $20,000,000, still left the expenses of the Government greater than the receipts from the revenue. In view of these considerations, the President recommended an increase of the tariff and a resort to specific duties as the only reliable manner of collecting the revenues, and, at the same time, affording that incidental protection to manufacturers to which they were fairly entitled under a revenue tariff. The Message favors the construction of a Pacific Railroad.

Relative to the Pacific Railroad no practical results were reached by Congress.

Persistent efforts were made to effect a revision of the tariff. They were defeated by the political partisans of the Administration. In the place of an increased revenue, the act to authorize the issue of Treasury notes was revived, and continued in force until the first day of July, 1860.

Oregon was admitted into the Union; many of the Republicans voting against the admission, on the ground of the unjust distinction and restriction imposed on the Territory of Kansas, and because of odious features in the constitution of the proposed State.

Mr. Davis, of Indiana, moved to suspend the rules of the House with the view of introducing a bill for the repeal of the restriction imposed on the Territory of Kansas by the English Act, which inhibited the people from forming a constitution and from admission as a State until the population of that territory should equal or exceed the number required for a Representative in Congress.

The motion was lost-yeas 100, nays 87; it requiring a two-thirds vote in order to suspend a rule of the House.