Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Caution!

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 409

EMANCIPATOR ---- EXTRA.

CAUTION!!

IMPORTANT HINTS.

1. Let the person to whom this is addressed immediately call a meeting of the abolitionists of his town or village, and let all be well informed and decided.

2. Let ballots be printed in each place having on the name of LUTHER BRADISH for Lieutenant Governor BLANK. Let every friend of freedom be provided with them.

3. Let each man select his own candidate for Governor----the best true-hearted man he can find---- vote for none at all. Will you, Sir, see that this is done?

Office of the AM. ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY

143 Nassau St. New York.

October 30, 1838.

At a special meeting of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society it was unanimously

Resolved, That this Committee, concurring in the sentiment universally expressed by abolitionists throughout the country, that political preferences are to be sacrificed to the interests of humanity, are of opinion that the reply of Mr. Bradish entitles him to the cordial support of abolitionists at the approaching election, and that on the other hand the replies of Mr. Seward and Gov. Marcy show that the cause of human rights has nothing to expect from the election of either of them, and hence every vote which is given to either will be injury to that cause.

Resolved, That the friends of humanity throughout this state be earnestly requested to withhold their votes from Messrs. Seward and Marcy and every other candidate who answers to the same effect or neglects to answer at all.

Published by order of the Committee,

ARTHUR TAPPAN, Chairman.

E. Wright Jr., Rec. Sec. pro tem.

ADDRESS TO VOTERS.

FELLOW CITIZENS, - You are on the eve of an election which will tell much for or against the cause of the slave. The question to be decided by our state law-makers is, whether New York shall become really a FREE STATE, or whether her statute books shall continue to sanction both the PRINCIPLE of slavery, and its PRACTICE among us by citizens of other states. A PLOT is ripening to defeat your influence. Listen to an explanation.

The candidates for Governor, and Lieutenant Governor, of both parties, have been respectfully questioned as to their views on three distinct points in which our laws uphold slavery. Answers have been received from WILLIAM H. SEWARD, and LUTHER BRADISH, the Whig candidates; and WILLIAM L. MARCY, the democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor no reply has yet been received. The reply of Mr. BRADISH is worthy of a freeman and a free state. In case his opponent should not show himself on ground equally favorable to freedom, it will secure to him the vote of every abolitionist in the State, whatever may be his political opinions. But the answer of MR. SEWARD is entirely another thing. On three plain questions, which it required not thorough abolitionism, but mere common justice, patriotism and candor to answer promptly in the affirmative, he shuffles, throws dust, strains reasons, and at last comes out in the NEGATIVE on two! The answer, as every careful examiner will see, is an effort to blind the abolitionists and do the work and get the favor of the slaveholders. It was concocted, we have every reason to believe, "by and with the advice and consent" of certain political leaders in WALL ST., in this city, who are in fact the vice-gerents of the slaveholder, and whose Couriers and Enquirers, Journals of Commerce, N. York Gazzettes, and Commercial Advertisers, have been from the first, the grand stirrers up of mobocracy against the cause of freedom. These same proslavery politicians who have given shape and tone to the answer of Mr. Seward, are enraged at the manly and independent answer of Mr. Braddish. There is reason to believe he will lose a large number of pro-slavery whig votes! There are mobocratic whigs in this state who will give up their political faith for the support of slavery: shall not the friends of freedom waive their political predilections, for the support of anti-slavery? The game of COL. WEBB and his pro-slavery satellites is, to prevent the abolitionists from teaching the politicians a salutory lesson - and mark - IF WHIG ABOLITIONISTS VOTE FOR SEWARD, THEY WILL SUCCEED. It will then appear, that with all the talk and pledges of the abolitionists, BRADISH who answered satisfactorily, has run some 10,000 votes behind SEWARD who answered as the N.Y. Courier and Enquirer and the slaveholders would have him. Can an abolitionist be so unwise and dead to the interests of humanity as to suffer any considerations of party politics to draw him towards such a result? We say earnestly, GIVE NOT A VOTE TO SEWARD! Of the answer of Gov. Marcy it is hardly necessary to speak. It is an insult to the questioners every

[col. 2, front]

way worthy of the functionary who in 1836 sanctioned mob law, and claimed for the legislature the power to put down the freedom of the press by pains and penalties for the support of slavery.* - Give not a single vote to one of the Gubernatorial or Vice Gubernatorial candidates, unless he comes unflinchingly up to the ground so nobly occupied by Mr. Bradish. Unless this plan in followed, one thing is certain, abolitionism, for this time, kicks the beam! Every man who now votes for Seward plays into the hands of the mobocrats and their principles the slaveholders; swallows the bait they throw - and what will he gain? - The hook. Friends and fellow citizens, we have declared before the world that we regard inalienable rights and equal justice as too sacred to be set aside by any other political question; we have in our votes, a political power that might achieve wonders for the slave: now if the next election shows that we have no conscience to guide the exertion of this power; that a shuffling politician can get our votes, while a fair and honorable one loses those of our adversaries, we are lost, - we have ruined the noblest cause ever committed to men.

"Relying on the influence of a sound and enlightened public opinion to restrain and control the misconduct of the citizens of a free government, especially when directed, as it has been in this case, with unexampled energy and unanimity to the particular evils under consideration, and perceiving that its operation has been thus far salutary, I entertain the best hopes that the remedy, of itself, will entirely remove these evils, or render them comparatively harmless. But if these reasonable expectations should, unhappily, be disappointed; if, in the face of numerous and striking exhibitions of public reprobation, elicited from our constituents by a just fear of fatal issues in which the uncurbed efforts of the abolitionists may ultimately end, any considerable portion of these misguided men should persist in pushing them forward to disastrous consequences, then a question new to our confederacy, will naturally arise, and must be met. It must then be determined how far the several states can provide, within the proper exercise of their constitutional powers, and how far in fulfillment of the obligations, resulting from their federal relations, they ought to provide by their own laws, for the trial and punishment by their own judicatories, of residents within their limits, guilty of acts therein, which are calculated to excite insurrection and rebellion in a sister state. - Without the power to pass such laws, the states would not possess the necessary means for preserving their external relation of peace among themselves, and would be without the ability to fulfil in all instances, the sacred obligations which they owe to each other as members of the Federal Union. Such a power is the acknowledged attribute of sovereignty; and the exercise of it is often necessary to prevent the embroiling of neighboring nations."

Gubernatorial Correspondence.

LETTER TO THE CANDIDATES.

October 1, 1838.

SIR, -

At a numerous meeting of our fellow-citizens at Utica on the 19^th, 20^th, and 21^st days of September last, we were appointed a Committee to present the following interrogatories to the several candidates for the offices of Governor and Lieut. Governor of this State, viz.:

1^st. Are you in favor of a law granting to persons in this State, claimed as fugitive slaves, a trial by jury?

2^nd. Are you in favor of abolishing all distinctions in the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this State founded solely on complexion?

3^rd. Are you in favor of a repeal of the law, which now authorises the importation of slaves into this State, and their detention here as such, for the term of nine months?

It cannot be necessary for us, Sir, to dwell in this communication on the importance both in principle and practice, of the subjects embraced in these questions, nor on the deep and rapidly increasing interest felt in them by a very large portion of our electors. They are subjects on which, if elected, you may be called to act officially, and it is therefore natural and proper, that those, whose suffrages may be so solicited in your behalf, should wish to know your present sentiments respecting them.

To avoid misapprehension, we take the liberty to state explicitly, that we are not instructed, and do not mean, to ask from you any pledge, as to your official conduct if elected, fully recognizing your right to govern that conduct at all times, by your own conviction of duty.

It is due to ourselves and those we represent to assure you, that the present inquiry is prompted by no desire to promote or defeat the success of any particular candidate, but is made solely for the purpose of affording the electors information important to their faithful and intelligent exercise of the elective franchise.

The answers with which we may be favored, will be promptly and without exception, communicated to the public.

We have the honor, Sir, to be

Very Respectfully, your ob't ser'ts.

WILLIAM JAY,

GERRIT SMITH

P.S. We will be obliged to you to direct your reply to us at Peterboro', Madison County.

To L. BRADISH, Esq.

REPLY OF MR. BRADISH

Moira, Franklin Co., N.Y.,

13^th Oct., 1838.

GENTLEMEN,-

I am honored with your letter of the 1^st, postmarked Peterboro', the 3^rd instant, informing me that

"At a numerous meeting of our fellow-citizens at Utica, on the 19^th, 20^th, and 21^st days of September last, you were appointed a committee to present the following interrogatories to the several candidates for the offices of Governor and Lieut. Governor of this State, viz:

1^st. Are you in favor of a law granting to persons in this State, claimed as fugitive slaves, a trial by jury?

"2^nd. Are you in favor of abolishing all distinctions in the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this State founded solely on complexion?

"3^rd. Are you in favor of a repeal of the law, which now authorizes the importation of slaves into this State, and their detention here, as such, for the term of nine months?"

I acknowledge the right of the electors, at all times, to be informed of the opinions of the candidate for public office, upon all subjects of public interest. I very cheerfully, therefore, proceed to answer your interrogatories, in the order in which you have presented them. And

1^st. The trial by jury has long been justly deemed one of the most precious rights of the citizen. This, in all cases, in which it had been heretofore used, is inviolably secured, generally by the Constitution of the State: and I can see no sufficient reason for making the case in question an exception to its enjoyment. If it be wise, and essential to the security

[col. 3, front]

of individual rights, to extend this inestimable privilege to the decision of a question of property, even of trifling amount, how much more so is it in a case involving a question of personal liberty? The one may be limited to a matter of a few cents; while the other to the party claimed, involves all that gives value to his life, all that is necessary to the attainment of its highest object, the intellectual and moral perfection of his being.

It is true that the Constitution of the United States inhibits any state from passing any law or regulation discharging from service or labor any person held to such service or labor in any other state, and requires that such person, on fleeing into any state, shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due.

The two principle requirements of this clause of the Constitution of the United States are clear and explicit; and we permit the party claiming, on his mere ex parte testimony, to arrest the alleged fugitive, and put him upon the trial of the fact, whether he be the fugitive slave of the party claiming him. If it be sound principle of law that "every one is to be presumed innocent until he is proven guilty;" in the State of New York at least, it is a principle of both liberty and law, that every one is to be presumed free until he is proven otherwise. But it is on the trial of this very fact, and until it is decided, that the party wants all the benefits of a jury. It would seem, in a case so interesting to the party, involving, as it does, all that is most dear to him, that the principles of humanity, the spirit of our Constitution and laws, the character of our State, and what she owes to the protection of her own citizens, as well as the dictates of justice itself, would require that we should extend to the party claimed in this case, all the advantages of trial, which are secured to all others.

I am, therefore, without advertising to the question of jurisdiction lately raised between this State and the United States, in favor of granting to persons in this State claimed as fugitive slaves, a trial by jury.

2^nd. Your second interrogatory embraces a question which was much agitated at the formation of the present Constitution of the State. In the full discussions which it underwent in the Convention which framed that Constitution, many of the most distinguished members of that body are found on the affirmative side of the question. I may be permitted here to allude particularly to one, whose has been, through a long life, only another name for whatever is cultivated and clear in intellect, ardent and enlightened in philanthropy, elevated and pure in purpose, entire and preserving in devotion to the good of his fellow-men. He is the worthy brother of one of you.

The right of suffrage is, under every free representative government, one of the most important rights of the citizen. It is in the use of this right mainly that the people exercise their power of sovereignty. It is all-important therefore, both to the security of individual rights, and the general welfare, that the bases of the right of suffrage should be wisely chosen, clearly defined, and well established. Under the Constitution of 1777, age, residence, property and the payment of taxes, were made the base of this important right. Under the present construction, except in the case of the colored man, citizenship, age, residence, military services, or labor on the highways, or an equivalent therefor, were constituted the bases of his right. To all these, in the case of the colored man, were added extended citizenship ans a freehold estate to the value of two hundred and fifty dollars, over and above all debts and incumbrances charged thereon.

Experience and the progress of time, with the more liberal views on this subject, which these brought along with them, soon led to a change in the Constitution which fixed this right upon its present bases of citizenship, age, and residence; amounting almost to universal suffrage. But this spirit of melioration did not reach the colored man. Neither an increasing sense of equal justice, nor the progress of liberal ideas brought any favorable change to him. He remains as to the right suffrage, where the Constitution of 1821 left him; subject to onerous conditions, from which the white citizen is exempt.

In excluding property from the bases of the right of suffrage under the Constitution of 1821, the people established a new and important democratic principle: a principle, which, in its operation, effected a great change in the character of the representative feature of the government. From being a combined representation of persons and property, as under the old Constitution, it became under this new principle, almost exclusively a representation of persons. The proviso, therefore, the new Constitution in relation to the colored citizen, is an anomaly, entirely at war with the above democratic principle, as it is with the general spirit of the Constitution.

But, with a view to get over this difficulty, it may be said, as it has been said, that the freehold of $250, required to be processed by the colored man, is not intended as, in itself, a qualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage; but only as evidence of that intelligence, industry, and good conduct, which qualify the possessor for a safe and salutary exercise of this important right. But where, in what part of the existing Constitution of the State, is either the evidence of the existence, or the existence itself, in the white citizen, of these qualifications, however desirable, made an indispensable condition to the exercise of this right? No where. It is, in relation to the colored citizen, and exclusive distinction. And it is an odious one

But there is another objection to this discriminating and unequal provision of the Constitution; it limits the right of suffrage to the possession of a freehold of the value of $250. No amount of personal property, however great, can be offered as a substitute. Now, if it be true that this freehold is not to be considered in itself so much a qualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage, as evidence of that intelligence, industry, and good conduct, which are such qualifications, it is not readily perceived why ten thousand dollars in personal property would not furnish such evidence in a much greater degree, although the latter should be invested in merchandize and the former in real estate. This principle, therefore, in its operation, even among the colored citizens themselves, is partial and unjust. But the general principle is itself wrong. It is inconsistent with the pervading spirit of the Constitution; creates an odious and unnecessary distinction; and violates the principles of equal and eternal justice. I respect the intelligence, the patriotism, and virtue of that majority of the framers of the Constitution, by whose votes this provision was inserted. They doubtless thought it wise and necessary. But they lived in other and different times than the present. If there were then reasons for this provision, those reasons have been gradually disappearing before the advance of education, of general light, and of the gradual improvement of that class of our citizens, to whom it applies. I believe it no longer necessary - that to abolish it would not only me safe, but would remove a

[col. 4, front]

fruitful source of heart-burning disaffection - would elevate the condition and character of an important portion of our population, and render them more safe and wholesome citizens. Every consideration of sound policy, therefore, would seem to demand this. It is due to consistency and the spirit of the Constitution. The light and spirit of the age demand it. A just regard to our character, as a free State, demands it. But above all, the immutable principles of equal and eternal justice demand it.

I am therefore, in favor of abolishing all distinctions in the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this State, founded solely on complexion.

3^rd. The State of New York, by its repeated legislative acts, has already pronounced her judgement and declared her own policy, on the subject of slavery. Within her own borders, she has already proclaimed universal emancipation; and has ranged herself among the free States. But she has still upon her statute book acts, which recognize the relation of master and slave, and which lend their sanction to protect the rights of the former, and enforce the obedience of the latter. These acts have been liable to great abuse, and are justly subjects of great complaint.

The obligations of New York, in this matter, to her sister slaveholding States, are clearly defined in that clause of the Constitution of the United States, above referred to, are limited to two points, viz: 1^st. To abstain from the passing of any law or regulation, discharging from service or labor any person held to such service or labor in another State; and 2^nd. To deliver up such person, fleeing into this State, on the claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due. Here the duty of New York ends; and to these points her legislation, as that of a free State, should perhaps be limited. But either from courtesy, liberality, or whatever else it may be, she has gone much beyond this, and provided for several other cases.

In the 3^rd Section of the 7^th Title of the 20^th Chapter of the 1^st Part of the Revised Statutes, it is provided that any inhabitant of any other State emigrating into this State with intent to reside permanently therein, may bring with him his slaves; and, on certain conditions, hold the same to service for a certain period.

Thus to authorize the bringing into our State elements or subjects, upon which our laws of emancipation are to operate, would seem to be consistent neither with the spirit and object of those laws; nor with the general policy of the State.

The 6^th Section of the same Title provides that "any person not being an inhabitant of this State, who shall be travelling to or from, or passing through this State, may bring with him any person lawfully held by him in slavery, and may take such person with him from this State, but the person so held in slavery shall not reside or continue in this State more than nine months, and if such residence be continued beyond that time, such person shall be free."

From this provision have flowed many abuses, and it is a subject of just complaint. But the 7^th Section of the same Title would seem to be liable to still greater abuse and objection. It provides that "any person who, or whose family shall reside part of the year in this State, and part of the year in any other State, may remove or bring with him or them, from time to time, any person lawfully held by him in slavery, into this State, and may carry such person with him or them out of this State."

Thus a person or family residing in New York, say eleven months, and in another state one month, would come within the provisions of this Section, and might thus perpetuate the servitude of his slaves almost exclusively within this state. It must be a mistaken courtesy, and a mis-placed liberality, that permit so great a violation of the spirit of our own laws, and authorize so great a departure from the settled and declared policy of the state. Toward a sister State I would exercise every act of liberality and courtesy, that did not involve a sacrifice of principle, or some important public interest. Above all, I would abide by the compromises of the Constitution. But I would not extend them. If something be due to others, much is also due to ourselves, to our own principles, and our own institutions. So utterly am I opposed to slavery in all its forms, so great an evil, both moral and political, do I consider its existence in our country, that I would not, beyond the clear requirements of the federal constitution, either directly or indirectly, nearly or remotely, lend to it the sanction of our state legislation. Nor can I view the existence of this great moral and political evil, as sometimes pretended, as the exclusive affair of the states where it exists. It touches too vitally the national interests and national character, not to be a subject of deep and legitimate interest to every citizen who loves his country and its honor. But while I would leave to the states where this evil exists the exclusive duty, as it is their exclusive right, to act in this matter, I would reserve to all, and beyond a peradventure or a doubt, the right of its free discussion. And although in the "consummation most devoutly to be wished," I rely under a controlling Providence, mainly upon the ultimate just views, generous impulses, and high moral sentiment of the slaveholder himself, yet to induce him to early action, I would not cease to address to him, as brother to brother, every consideration that a burning patriotism could suggest, every inducement that an enlightenment philanthropy could inspire, every argument and sanction that an elevated morality and holy religion could supply. Nor do I longer fear, in this matter, the counteraction of individuals, however distinguished, who would, upon this great subject, forever shut the door in the very face of hope. He must heed very little the admonitions of the age; be little observant of all that is passing in the old world and the new, who can doubt the future progress of events, and certain consummation on this subject. As well might our lungs remain intact from the air we breath as opinions not receive their "form and pressure" from the moral atmosphere of the world and age in which we live. And the time is not distant when our own slaveholding states, moved by their own generous impulses, and the all-pervading spirit of the age, will themselves accomplish upon this subject all that the most enlightened philanthropy and most ardent patriotism could desire; and our whole country, in all its length and breadth, become in fact, what it is already in name, the freest on earth.

From the foregoing you will readily infer an affirmative answer to the 3d interrogatory.

I have thus answered with great frankness, and with such minuteness as time would permit, your several interrogatories.

I have only to add an assurance of the great consideration and respect with which I have the honor to be,

Gentlemen,

Your friend and servant,

L. BRADISH

Hon. Wm. Jay,

and Gerrit Smith,

Committee.

[col. 5, back]

ANSWER OF MR. SEWARD.

Gentlemen: - Your letter, proposing to me certain questions in behalf of a numerous meeting of my fellow-citizens, at Utica, has been received.

You must be aware, gentlemen, that the convention which designed me as a representative of the Whig party in this State in the approaching election, has done so without any reference to the subjects indicated in your inquiries, and that those subjects enter not at all into the political creed of that large body of freemen, whose candidate I have become. Persons selected as the representatives of political principles, can have no right to compromise their constituents by the expression of opinions on other subjects than those in reference to which the selections were made. Upon this ground a candidate might, perhaps, decline to answer any inquiries other than such as relate to the political matters agitated among the people. He might, with even greater propriety, excuse himself from answering a body of men who do not profess to form a political party, and who do not declare that their votes will be in the least influenced by the answer they may receive; but, who on the contrary, in their official communication say, that their "inquiry is prompted by no desire to promote or defeat the success of any particular candidate, but is made solely for the purpose of affording to the electors information important to the faithful and intelligent exercise of the elective franchise." But, gentlemen, I am disposed to treat the matter with more enlarged and elevated views. I am unwilling that the intelligent, virtuous and patriotic citizens, who have called upon me to become their candidate, shall be subjected to the reproach of having selected a citizen who either held any opinions that he was desirous to conceal, or who was unwilling to trust to the intelligence and liberality of his countrymen, for the honest indulgence of sentiments that any of them might deem erroneous, on subjects of great difficulty, and in relation to which the wisest and best men of our country do not agree.

I am unwilling, moreover, to impair the force of the great republican principle, which recognizes the right of the constituent to know the opinions of the representative, in order that the will of the people may be fully expressed; and which acknowledges also the duty of obeying that will when ascertained.

Your first inquiry is -

"Are you in favor of a law granting to persons in this State claimed as fugitive slaves, a trial by jury?"

I am decidedly in favor of such a law. To me it seems that the more humble or degraded the individual over whom arbitrary power is attempted to be exercised, the stronger is his claim to the protection of a trial by jury. This inestimable institution, derived by us with the choicest and dearest principles of liberty, from the purest periods of England, can neither be too highly appreciated nor too widely extended. Its provisions are peculiarly applicable to the case of the wretched being whose services are claimed as the property of another. But, gentlemen, I am not aware that any farther legislation is necessary to secure this tight to the persons in question. Abundant provision already exists in our laws, and in my judgements provisions are imperfect harmony with the institutions of civil liberty. It is true that the question is now pending in the Court of Errors whether this provision conflicts with the Constitution of the United States.* Should that law be sustained, there are, I think, very few citizens who would desire its repeal, and certainly I am not one of them. If, however, the statute shall be passed which will avoid that objection and secure the right, it will find in me a firm supporter.

Your second inquiry is -

"Are you in favor of abolishing all distinctions in the constitutional rights of the citizens of this State, founded solely on complexion?"

This question is very general, and I am at a loss to perceive its application to any other subject than that provision of the Constitution which requires, as a qualification for the exercise of the elective franchise by colored persons, the possession of a freehold estate of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars, a residence of three years in the State, and the actual payment of taxes.

The property qualification, as a test of the requisite intelligence and capacity for the exercise of the elective franchise was abolished by our new Constitution in all cases except that of colored persons, as anti-republican and unsound in principle.

I believe that men may become competent to the responsibilities of self-government. I think, also, that nations and races may become debased by ignorance, so as to be destitute of intelligence and virtue requisite for the discharge of those responsibilities. The Constitution seems to have adopted these principles, by imposing a restriction on the right of suffrage on the part of the colored population, instead of their total exclusion. In this view, the constitutional restriction in question is scarcely to be regarded as a distinction founded solely on complexion, but should rather be considered as a test to discriminate between those of that race who possess the requisite intelligence and capacity to discharge the responsibilities of freemen, and those who do not. Objectionable as a property qualification is for such a test, I am not prepared to say, having their view the actual condition of that race, that no test ought to exist.

The constitution of this state was but recently established. Its distribution of the right of suffrage was the act of the people themselves, and was adopted with, what was then believed, a just regard to the security of classes of citizens and the general welfare. Organic changes in society ought not to be rashly made: and such changes ought not, and indeed cannot, be made here, without the decided and clearly expressed will of the majority of the people. However "extensive and increasing" may be the interest felt on this subject among our fellow citizens, it certainly cannot be assumed that their views have undergone so great a change, that they are prepared for this proposed alteration of the constitution. Under such circumstances, if my views agreed with your own, and if I deemed it my duty to express them on all other occasions, I should nevertheless justly expose myself to the charge of temerity, were I, when standing as a candidate for the office of chief magistrate, to pledge myself to recommend the modification of the constitution in this respect. And such a pledge would most certainly be inferred from a declaration of such views, however in language it might be disclaimed. It would be ungracious as well as unnecessary to enter into the argument on this matter, since in the investigation of the subject you must have anticipated every suggestion I could make in the defence of my views, when they differ from your own. I dismiss the interrogatory, therefore, with the simple negative I feel myself constrained to give.

Your third question is -

"Are you in favor of a repeal of the law which now authorises the importation of slaves into this state, and their detention as such during a period of nine months?"

The provisions of our statute on the subject of slavery are as follows: - The statute declares that all persons born in this state, whether white or colored, are free. That all persons who shall be born in this state after its enactment shall be free, and that all persons who shall be brought [synonymous in your communication with "imported,"] into this state, as slaves, shall be free, with two exceptions. The first exception provides that persons emigrating into this state and bringing with them any person lawfully held in slavery in the state from whence they emigrated, may retain such persons, not as slaves, but as apprentices until they arrive at the age of twenty-one years.

The other exception is that "any person not being an inhabitant of this state who shall be traveling to or from or passing through the state, may bring with him any person lawfully held by him in slavery in the state from whence he came, and may take such person with him from this state: but the person so held in slavery shall not reside or continue in this state more than nine months, and if such residences be continued beyond that time, such persons shall be free."

It is this last exception to which your question refers. Does not your enquiry give too broad a meaning to the section? It certainly does not confer upon any citizen of the state or of any other country, or any citizen of any other state, except the owner of slaves in another state, by virtue of the laws thereof, the right to bring slaves into this state or detain them here under any circumstances as such. I understand your inquiry therefore to mean, whether I am in favor

* Mr. Seward is mistaken in supporting that this question is pending in the Court of Errors. The decision of the Supreme Court by which the jury trial is set aside, prevails as the practical law of the State. - ED.

[col. 6, back]

of a repeal of the law, which declares in substance that any person from the Southern or Southwestern states who may be travelling to or from or passing through the state, may bring with him, and take with him any person lawfully held by him in slavery in the state from whence he came, provided such slaves do not remain here more than nine months.

Before I proceed to answer the question, I may say generally, that I am not opposed to every form of slaveholding in this state, not only by our own citizens, but by all other persons, and to any recognition of such a right in this state, in every form, except such as the constitution of this state clearly establishes. That I regard the judiciary as the proper tribunal to expound all constitutional questions, and that to the constitution and such expositions of it are made by the courts of law, it is with me a principle of political action to yield obedience and support.

The article of the constitution of the United States which bears upon the present question, declares that no person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but such person shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

I understand that, in the state of Massachusetts, this provision of the constitution has been decided by the courts not to include the case of a slave brought by his master into the state, and escaping thence.

But the courts of law in this state have uniformly given a different construction to the same article of the constitution, and have always decided that it does embrace the case of a slave brought by his master into this state, and escaping from here. Consequently, under this judicial construction of the constitution, and without, and in defiance of any law or regulation of this state, if the slave escapes from his master in this state, he must be restored to him, when claimed, at any time during his master's temporary sojournments within the state, whether that sojournment be six months, nine months, or longer. It is not for me to say that this decision is erroneous, nor is it for our legislature. Acting under its authority, they passed the law to which you object, for the purpose, not of conferring new powers or privileges on the slave owner, but to prevent his abuse of that which the constitution of the United States, thus expounded, secures to him. The law, as I understand it, therefore, was intended to fix a period of time, as a test of transient passage through or temporary residence in this state, within the provisions of the constitution. The duration of nine months is not material in the question, and if it be unnecessarily long, may and ought to be abridged. But, if no such law existed, the right of the master (under the construction of the constitution before mentioned) would be indefinite, and the slave must be surrendered to him in all cases of travelling through, or passage to or from the state.

If I have correctly apprehended the subject, this law is not one conferring a right upon any person to import slaves into the state and hold them here as such; but is an attempt at restriction upon the constitutional right upon any person to import slave into the state and hold them here as such; but is an attempt at restriction upon the constitutional right of the master, a qualification, or at least a definition of it, and is in favor of the slave. Its repeal, therefore, would have the effect to put in greater jeopardy the class of persons you propose to benefit by it. While the construction of the constitution adopted here is maintained, the law, it would seem, ought to remain on our statute book, not as an encroachment, upon the rights of man, but a protection for them.

But, gentlemen, being desirous to be entirely candid in this communication, it is proper I should add that I am not convinced that it would be either wise, expedient, or humane, to declare to our fellow citizens of the Southern and Southwestern States, that if they will travel to or from, or pass through, the state of New York, they shall not bring with them their attendants whom custom, or education, or habit, may have rendered necessary to them. I have not been able to discover any good object to be attained from such an act of inhospitality. It certainly can work no injury to us, nor can it be injurious to the unfortunate beings, held in bondage, to permit them once, perhaps, in their lives, and at most on occasions few and far between, to visit a country where slavery is unknown. I can even conceive of benefits to the great cause of human liberty, from the cultivation of this intercourse with the South.

I can imagine but one ground of objection, which is that it may be regarded as a implication that this state sanctions slavery. If this objection were well grounded, I should at once condemn the law. But in truth, the law does not imply any such sanction. The same statute, which in necessary obedience to the constitution of the United States as expounded, declares the exception, condemns in the most clear and definite terms, all human bondage.

I will not press the consideration flowing from the nature of our union and the mutual concessions on which it was founded, against the propriety of such an exclusion as your question contemplates, apparently for the purpose only of avoiding an implication not founded in fact, and which the history of our state so nobly contradicts. It is sufficient to say that such an exclusion could have no good effect practically, and would accomplish nothing in the great cause of human liberty.

I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,

Your obedient servant.

W.H. SEWARD.

GERRIT SMITH, and

WILLIAM JAY, Esq.

From the Argus.

ANSWER OF GOV. MARCY.

ALBANY, Oct. 10, 1838.

Gentlemen, - I have received your communication propounding to me, as one of the candidates for the office of Governor of this state, certain questions in relation to matters on which you intimate I may, if elected, be called to act officially.

In relation to the first, viz: "Are you in favor of a law granting to persons in this state claimed as fugitive slaves, a trial by jury?" - I would observe, that this question seems to imply that there is now no such law: whereas the contrary is the fact. By the existing statute law of this state, in all cases wherein a claim to a person as a fugitive slave is disputed, an issue as to the question whether the person claimed be or be not a fugitive slave, may be joined and submitted to a jury for determination. As I have not myself, and am not aware that any other person has, entertained objections to this law merely on the ground of policy, I confess I was surprised that the foregoing question should have been included among your interrogations. It may be to the purpose to remark that the supreme court of this state has adjudged this law to be unconstitutional, on the ground that the general government has the right to regulate the proceedings in relation to fugitive slaves, and having done so, the act of congress is paramount to the laws of any state on the same subject. As you do not express a wish to have my views on this point, it would be impertinent in me to trouble you with them. I will therefore, only say that if the proper tribunals of the country shall sustain this law, I shall be in favor of retaining it in our statutory code.

The object of your second questions, "Are you in favor of abolishing all distinction in the constitutional rights of the citizens of this state, founded solely on complexion?" - is as I conceive, only designed to obtain my opinion as to that provision of the constitution of this state, which makes a difference between the white population and persons of color, in relation to the exercise of the elective franchise.

I am well satisfied with the constitution as it is, in this respect, and certainly do not wish it amended for the purpose of placing persons of color upon an equality as to voting with other citizens.

The last interrogatory, which asks me if "I am in favor of the repeal of the law which now authorizes the importation of slaves into this state, and their detention here as such, for the term of nine months?" has reference, I presume, to the 6^th section in the 20^th chapter of the first part of the R. Statutes, which is as follows:

"Any person not being an inhabitant of this state, who shall be travelling to or from, or passing through this state, may bring with him any person lawfully held by him in slavery, and may take such person with him from this state; but if the person so held in slavery, shall reside or continue in this state more than nine months, and if such residence be continued beyond that time, such person shall be free."

By comparing this law with you interrogatory, you will perceive that the latter implies much more than the former expresses. The discrepancy between then is so great that

[column 7, back]

I suspected, at first, that you had reference to some other enactment which had escaped a general notice. As none however can be found but the foregoing to which the question is in any respect applicable, there will be no mistake I presume in assuming it to be the one you had in view.

The deviation, in putting the question, form what would seem to be the plain and obvious course of directing the attention to the particular law under consideration, by referring to it in the very terms in which it is expressed, or at least in language showing its objects and limitations, I do not impute to any intention to create an erroneous impression as to the law, or to ascribe to it a character of odiousness which it does not deserve; yet I think that it must be conceded that your question will induce those who are not particularly acquainted with the section of the statute to which it refers, to believe that there is a law of this state which allows a free importation of slaves into it without restriction as to object, and without limitations as to the persons who may do so; yet this is very far from being true. This law does not permit any inhabitant of this state to bring into it any person held in slavery, under any pretense or for any object whatsoever; nor does it allow any person of any other state or country to do so, except such person is actually travelling to or from, or passing through this state. This law in its operation and effect, only allows persons belonging to states or nations where domestic slavery exists, who happen to be travelling in this state, to be attended by their servants whom they lawfully hold in slavery when at home provided they do not remain within our territories longer than nine months. The difference between it and the one implied by your interrogatory is so manifest, that it is perhaps fair to presume, that if those by whose appointment you act in this matter had not misrapprehended its character, they would not have instructed you to make it the subject of one of your questions. It is so restricted in its object, and that object is so unexceptionable, that it can scarcely be regarded as obnoxious to well founded objections when viewed in its true light. Its repeal would, I apprehend, have an injurious effect upon our intercourse with some of the other states, and particularly upon their business connection with our commercial emporium. In addition to this, the repeal would have a tendency to disturb the political harmony among the members of our confederacy, without producing any beneficial results to compensate for these evils. I am not therefore in favor of it.

I have the honor to be with great respect, your obedient servant,

W. L. MARCY

Messrs. Wm. Jay, and Gerrit Smith, Committee.

Remarks on the Correspondence.

The letters of Mr. Seward and Gov. Marcy are so well and nobly answered by that of Mr. Bradish, that we hardly need to do more than point to the contrast. On one or two points, however, we will add a word.

Both Seward and Marcy hold that our Statute granting to the person arrested as a fugitive the privilege of having a jury trial by bringing his writ of homine replegiando is sufficient, if constitutional. They think no further legislation necessary. But the Statute, were it in force, would be far from satisfying justice or her friends..

1. The writ homine replegiando is an antiquated form of the English common law, burdened with technicalities, involving unnecessary expense and liable to failure for want of due formality. It is any thing but a remedy fit for a poor man.

2. The Statute does not make it compulsory that the question of freedom, in all cases where slavery is not admitted, shall be tried by a jury. It only gives the poor man, "who is so wretched" as to be seized as a slave, the privilege of bringing his writ, if, locked up in his dungeon, he can find friends and counsel to do it for him! - and all that, in the brief space of a few hours, during which the whole of the summary process is wont to be hurried through and the man, handcuffed, on his way to the cotton fields! The truth is, the statute, however humane its intention, without the intervention of extraordinary philanthropy must be wholly inoperative. It is a disgrace to New York, that, while the ownership of a dog or a horse cannot be settled without the consent of both parties, except by a jury trial; any picked magistrate may settle the ownership of a man, unless that man can find means to commence and carry on an expensive and unusual kind of law suit. The friends of freedom ought not to be satisfied till they have a law which makes it IMPERATIVE that every question of personal freedom shall be settled by JURY.

On the right of suffrage, Marcy and Seward are equally and flagrantly wrong. The only difference is, that Seward stultifies himself by his admissions - coming out for a qualification for colored electors which he confesses to be "anti-republication and unsound," while Marcy is unqualifiedly for injustice. These Candidates for the Gubernatorial chair, would exact of that class of our fellow-citizens who most need the right of suffrage, qualifications not required of the rest. To disfranchise white men by a property-test were comparatively just, for they belong to a race that is vastly in the majority, and can protect itself; but colored men want their full share in the franchise, for they are more liable to become the victims of oppression. To say as Messrs. Seward and Marcy do, that colored men who pay taxes are less worthy to vote than white men who only do the same, is in fact a cruel slander - it is an assumption which the colored people may well defy the gentlemen to make good by an investigation into character and facts. Let a legislative committee, or some other tribunal, take evidence on this point, before politicians presume to brand thousands of their industrious and moral fellow-citizens with incompetency to vote for their law-makers.

It is not surprising, that after such a display of their regard for republican justice, these gentlemen should see no harm in the law which permits citizens of other States to reside here more than half the year with their slaves, and pervert our courts of justice to the purpose of keeping them in slavish subjection. The plain English of it is, they would sanction slavery on our soil for the sake of trade with the South! Mr. Seward, we are certainly to understand, would consider it an act of "inhospitality" to refuse to aid the slaveholder, transient among us, in whipping in his human "attendants." Mark these false hearted republicans. Let them say what they will to get votes, their abhorrence of slavery is less than their particular affection for slaveholders. They would keep our State an open thoroughfare for the principles and practice of slavery; and the election of either of them will be perfectly satisfactory to that portion of the Union which puts the preservation of Slavery and Lynch-law above all other interests.

Pro-Slavery Signs.

The following are extracts from some of the New-York mobocratic journals. They show what Bradish and every honest candidate has to expect, who stands up for the right. - The first is form the Gazette, and though a communication, is probably from the pen of the Editor DANIELS, who as sub-editor of the Courier and Enquirer, got up the great New-York mob of 1834. The latter is from the Journal of Commerce, whose editors profess to be as much opposed to Slavery as any body - but don't like our measures. Read them as signs, and act accordingly.

From the Gazette.

Mr. Editor - The able letter of Mr. Seward, published in your paper yesterday, addressed to the organs of the abolitionists, is a frank and manly paper, and although more explicit and respectful in its tone than due to that infatuated and seditious conclave of disorganizers, is a sure pledge that the views of our talented candidate for Governor are, on the

[column 8, back]

subject of slavery, sound, philanthropic and constitutional, and that if such men alone, are invested with power, all will be safe.

I wish that I could give a similar commendation to the letter of Mr. Bradish on the same subject. But alas! it is the opposite in every particular' ultra in every respect. It concedes all that the abolitionists desire, besides furnishing them with specious arguments, and is as radical as if the Secretary of their Society had penned it himself. I heard an abolitionists pronounce it to be too good, it was more than he had expected. Now, sir, I want to know what is the intent of all this concession? Was it known, to the convention who nominated Mr. Bradish, that he was an abolitionist? Was he nominated on that ground? The fact in the case should be developed, that, with due deference for party considerations, we may act intelligently and with the patriotism of good citizens. The political questions which agitate our country on the subject of finance, I look upon as of vital importance, there is another consideration, paramount to all others, the preservation of our Union. If the subject of slavery, which, so far as we are concerned, should be viewed as definitely disposed of, is to be drawn into the arena of politics, who can divine what it may evenuate in? For my part I am determined to vote for no man who responds to the watchword of that ambitious demagogue O'Connell, who is now striving to obtain in England, by hypocritical addresses to the abolitionists, the same dangerous political influence, which he possesses in Ireland. He cries agitate! agitate! or in plain words, obtain freedom for the blacks, even though their alter must be erected on the ruins of a Government which if not perfect, is the freest and most fautless ever yet devised by the wisdom of man.

Mr. Bradish says, "I am therefore in favor of abolishing all distinctions in the constitutional rights of the citizens of the state founded solely on complexion." Before I can accede to this sentiment, I must bring my mind to consent to vote for some black fellow to be Governor or Lieutenant Governor of this state; and to be consistent, I shall not, in the interim, vote for any man who advocates such a James Crow doctrine.

A Whig but no Abolitionist.

From the Journal of Commerce.

Mr. Bradish, the Whig candidate for Lieut. Governor, has answered the whole of the Abolition catechism affirmatively. Mr. Seward, the Whig candidate for Governor, has answered them like a man determined not to be humbuged. He has manifested a proper respect for himself, and for the people who have put him in nomination, but a small fraction of whom concur in the views of Abolitionists.

We shall now have an opportunity to see what is the plain English of the 40,000 votes which the Abolitionists claim in this state. We shall see whether Bradish has 40,000 more votes than Seward, - or if you please, 30,000, which we believe is the number of Whig Abolitionists claimed in the State.

Political Action - Hints to Abolitionists.

1. "Remember them that are in bonds as bound with them," on the days of election, and at the polls, as well as on the Sabbath, and in the closet.

2. Law made slavery, and law must unmake it. Legislators make laws, and the voters make the legislators. Every vote given to any one but an immediate abolitionist is given to support slavery. Look well how you vote.

3.Don't vote for an enemy of Abolition to go to Washington, and then complain that they sell men and women there.

4. Don't send such men to Congress, and then pray God to break every yoke and let the oppressed go free. How could he do it, without working a miracle? It is consistent to elect bad rulers, and then fast and pray over the corruption of your government? "This ought ye to have done."

5. Don't elect the enemies of your cause to represent you at Albany, and then complain that the legislature refuses a jury trial to fugitives, and refuses to abolish our own New York slavery.

6. Don't be satisfied with a candidate who is in favor of the right of petition and free discussion, but is opposed to abolition. He respects your rights to get your votes, and tramples on the slave to get the votes of pro-slavery men. He does not grant you your rights from principle, but expediency: and when it is expedient, will trample on you as well as a slave. Besides is it generous to purchase your rights, at such a price? Right of petition? Is he for granting the slave this right? Try him there! Besides, how long are abolitionists going to be satisfied to elect rulers whose only claim to their votes is, that they will not insult them by refusing to hear their prayers for crushed humanity, but only by stoutly declaring they will, having heard, spurn their request? Right of petition? They dare not deny it to you! You have fought for and won it - no thanks to them. Right of free discussion? Ah verily! No wonder they are in favor of extending to you. You have wrung it from them by mighty struggles, and now they claim your thanks for permitting you to enjoy your "spoils!" How long will abolitionists consent to barter away the rights of the dumb slave for such equivalents? - Rights of petition and free discussion? Why, do not these Solomons know that if they ever get to Washington or to Albany, they must take an oath to support these rights? and do they claim your suffrage, on the ground that if you will place them in the national or state legislatures, they will not disgrace their seats by committing perjury? Let us leave such "principles" to those who are "as much opposed to slavery as any body - but;" - while we "go on unto" abolition! Our motto is - ONWARD!

7. Don't be wheeled into voting for A. B. (who id decidedly hostile to abolition) for fear that if you do not, C. D. will be elected, who is a worse man. If bad men (whether pretty bad, or very bad) are to rule, let others take the responsibility of electing them. Will you do evil that good may come? Rather do right, and God will overrule it for good.

8. Don't "take the least of two evils." Take neither. If two men are offered as candidates, both of whom are opposed to immediate abolition, go dead against them both. Vote only for a true man. If by so doing, the worse man of the two is elected, upon others rests the responsibility. Besides, - very probably that the worst man will make more abolitionists by his open violence, than the "pretty bad" man will, by his smooth exterior, and secret hatred. Who has made the most abolitionists within four years, John C. Calhoun or Samuel L. Southard? Go for positives, not negatives.

9. Question your candidates closely. Bring them out. If they dodge, dodge them. If they equivocate, mark them. They are against you. If, in their answers, they refuse to "to the mark," vote against them. If they are false to humanity, let your hand perish before it shall drop a ballot for them. If they fail on the main question - IMMEDIATEISM, - fail them on the day of the trial. If they are false to the slave, defeat them if you can. If they refuse to go to the utmost verge of their constitutional authority to rescue liberty, do you take the liberty to go to the utmost of your influence to keep them out of power. If they answer not at all, don't come at their call. They are your secret enemies. Vote openly against them. If they answer, scan carefully their phraseology. They will cover up bad opinions under plausible words. Get at their real meaning, if possible, and if they don't "go the whole MAN," they are unworthy to represent men. Cut them off.

10. Scatter your votes on good men, (such men as the slave would vote for, could he stand in your place) if neither party puts up such men. Your votes will not be lost. In New England, they will count directly, and may defeat the election. In New York they will exert a mighty moral influence, they will be counted, and remembered.

11. Don't say, "there are no candidates up who are abolitionists, and, as somebody must be elected, we had better select the best." Everybody is "up." Caucuses "put up" men, (and very weak or bad ones sometimes) and then whip in the party to vote for them. Abolitionists go against whips. There are one hundred true friends of the slave, in this state, as fit, in every particular, for Governor, as William L. Marcy, or William H. Seward. This Senate district furnishes an abundance of unshackled freemen, as worthy to represent it in the State Senate, as Minthorne Tompkins, or Gabriel Furman. There are many friends of immediate emancipation in this city, abundantly competent to represent it in Congress and the State Legislature. And they are all "up." Don't be the slaves of caucus management, nor the serfs of party. Go for THE CAUSE.

S.