Volume II Part 73 (2/2)

A short time previous to the late election in Rhode Island for governor and lieutenant-governor, a letter was addressed to each of the candidates for those offices by Mr. Johnson, Corresponding Secretary of the Rhode Island Anti-Slavery Society, embodying the views of the abolitionists on the several subjects it embraced, in a series of queries. Their purport will appear from the answer of Mr. Sprague, (who was elected governor,) given below. The answer of Mr. Childs (elected lieutenant-governor) is fully as direct as that of governor Sprague.

”WARWICK, _March 28, 1838_.

DEAR SIR,--Your favor of the 19th inst. requesting of me, in conformity to a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Rhode Island Anti-Slavery Society, an expression of my opinions on certain topics, was duly received. I have no motive whatever for withholding my opinions on any subject which is interesting to any portion of my fellow-citizens. I will, therefore, cheerfully proceed to reply to the interrogatories proposed, and in the order in which they are submitted.

1. Among the powers vested by the Const.i.tution in Congress, is the power to exercise exclusive legislation, 'in all cases whatsoever,'

over the District of Columbia? 'All cases' must, of course, include the _case_ of slavery and the slave-trade. I am, therefore, clearly of opinion, that the Const.i.tution does confer upon Congress the power to abolish slavery and the slave-trade in that District; and, as they are great moral and political evils, the principles of justice and humanity demand the exercise of that power.

2. The traffic in slaves, whether foreign or domestic, is equally obnoxious to every principle of justice and humanity; and, as Congress has exercised its powers to suppress the slave-trade between this country and foreign nations, it ought, as a matter of consistency and justice, to exercise the same powers to suppress the slave-trade between the states of this Union. The slave-trade within the states is, undoubtedly, beyond the control of Congress; as the 'sovereignty of each state, to legislate exclusively on the subject of slavery, which is tolerated within its limits,' is, I believe, universally conceded. The Const.i.tution unquestionably recognises the sovereign power of each state to legislate on the subject within its limits; but it imposes on us no obligation to add to the evils of the system by countenancing the traffic between the states. That which our laws have solemnly p.r.o.nounced to be piracy in our foreign intercourse, no sophistry can make honorable or justifiable in a domestic form. For a proof of the feelings which this traffic naturally inspires, we need but refer to the universal execration in which the slave-dealer is held in those portions of the country where the inst.i.tution of slavery is guarded with the most jealous vigilance.

3. Congress has no power to abridge the right of pet.i.tion. The right of the people of the non-slaveholding states to pet.i.tion Congress for the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and the traffic of human beings among the states, is as undoubted as any right guarantied by the Const.i.tution; and I regard the Resolution which was adopted by the House of Representatives on the 21st of December last as a virtual denial of that right, inasmuch as it disposed of all such pet.i.tions, as might be presented thereafter, in advance of presentation and reception.

If it was right thus to dispose of pet.i.tions on _one_ subject, it would be equally right to dispose of them in the same manner on _all_ subjects, and thus cut of all communication, by pet.i.tion between the people and their representatives. Nothing can be more clearly a violation of the spirit of the Const.i.tution, as it rendered utterly nugatory a right which was considered of such vast importance as to be specially guarantied in that sacred instrument.

A similar Resolution pa.s.sed the House of Representatives at the first session of the last Congress, and as I then entertained the same views which I have now expressed, I recorded my vote against it.

4. I fully concur in the sentiment, that 'every principle of justice and humanity requires, that every human being, when personal freedom is at stake, should have the benefit of a jury trial;' and I have no hesitation in saying, that the laws of this state ought to secure that benefit, so far as they can, to persons claimed as fugitives from 'service or labor,' without interfering with the laws of the United States. The course pursued in relation to this subject by the Legislature of Ma.s.sachusetts meets my approbation.

5. I am opposed to all attempts to abridge or restrain the freedom of speech and the press, or to forbid any portion of the people peaceably to a.s.semble to discuss any subject--moral, political, or religious.

6. I am opposed to the annexation of Texas to the United States.

7. It is undoubtedly inconsistent with the principles of a free state, professing to be governed in its legislation by the principles of freedom, to sanction slavery, in any form, within its jurisdiction. If we have laws in this state which bear this construction, they ought to be repealed. We should extend to our southern brethren, whenever they may have occasion to come among us, all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by our own citizens, and all the rights and privileges guarantied to them by the Const.i.tution of the United States; but they cannot expect of us to depart from the fundamental principles of civil liberty for the purpose of obviating any temporal inconvenience which they may experience.

These are my views upon the topics proposed for my consideration.

They are the views which I have always entertained, (at least ever since I have been awakened to their vast importance,) and which I have always supported, so far as I could, by my vote in Congress; and if, in any respect, my answers have not been sufficiently explicit, it will afford me pleasure to reply to any other questions which you may think proper to propose.

I am, Sir, very respectfully,

Your friend and fellow citizen,

WILLIAM SPRAGUE.”

Oliver Johnson, Esq., Cor. Sec. R.I.A.S. Society.

APPENDIX C.

The abolitionists in Connecticut pet.i.tioned the Legislature of that state at its late session on several subjects deemed by them proper for legislative action. In answer to these pet.i.tions--

1. The law known as the ”Black Act” or the ”Canterbury law”--under which Miss Crandall was indicted and tried--was repealed, except a single provision, which is not considered objectionable.

2. The right to _trial by jury_ was secured to persons who are claimed as slaves.

3. Resolutions were pa.s.sed a.s.serting the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and recommending that it be done as soon as it can be, ”consistently with the _best good_ of the _whole country_.”(!)

4. Resolutions were pa.s.sed protesting against the annexation of Texas to the Union.

<script>