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

Friends of liberty! read this before you vote!

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 704

FRIENDS OF LIBERTY!

READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE!!

You profess to believe, that slavery is a system of enormous wickedness and cruelty, which should be immediately abolished; - that those who have the power to abolish it, are bound immediately to exercise it, and if they refuse, they war on the rights of man, and the commands of God.

At the approaching election, you will have an opportunity to illustrate the strength of your professions, by voting for a Governor and Lieut. Governor, four members of Congress, a state Senator, and thirteen members of the Assembly. May you so vote as to illustrate their strength, and not their weakness! Permit us to offer you the following suggestions.

1. Slavery in the District of Columbia, and in Florida, and the internal slave-trade, are "the peculiar institutions" of the North. It created, and it sustains them.

2. These outrages must be removed by POLITICAL ACTION. Legislation made them, and it must unmake them. Legislators make legislation, and voters make legislators. Therefore, POLITICAL ACTION AT THE POLLS must destroy these "particular institutions." This, and this only, can do it.

3. Remember, then that if you vote for Congressmen, you vote either for or against slavery; and that every vote given to a candidate who is not an immediate abolitionist goes to support slavery. Therefore, you will declare by your votes whether, so far as your influence goes, slavery in the District of Columbia and Florida, and the domestic slave-trade, shall cease or continue. Vote for one who is opposed to their immediate abolition, and you hold up your hand before God and the world, to sustain them. You record your testimony in behalf of oppression, aid in crushing efforts for its overthrow, and strike hands with Calhoun and Wise, against Morris and Slade. You are virtually a slaveholder, and refuse to let the oppressed go free.

4. Do you doubt this? The member of Congress is your servant, your hired man - sent to Washington to do your work, at so much per day. In all he does, he is but the agent, while you are the principal. By voting for him intelligently, you endorse his acts in advance. He is your chosen instrument, - and when it stabs the poor slaves, remember that your arm dealt the blow. "Strike! But hear!"

5. In so doing, remember what you vote for. The debasement of God's image - the denial of legal protection to the innocent - the plundering of poor laborers of their hard earnings - the annihilation of the seventh commandment - the selling of women and children in lots to suit purchasers - the withholding of knowledge, and the Bible, and the Sabbath, from rational, immortal beings; - for the internal slave trade with its untold horrors, and its 50,000 victims; - for a national disgrace, a political cancer, a moral pest, loathed by the world, and cursed by God. Then you vote your mind. But, don't vote for an enemy of immediate abolition, who, for two years, will, as your enslaved brother, and then call yourself an abolitionist!

6. Do this, and you are not only stained with the crime of slaveholding, but are guilty of the most glaring inconsistency, not to say hypocrisy. Let us prove this.

(1.) Have you ever petitioned for the immediate abolition of slavery in the national Capital? Were you sincere? Will you now send men there, who you know will deny this prayer? This is worse than building up with one hand, and tearing down with the other. It is removing the very base of your edifice. Right petitioning, and wrong voting, is worse than faith without works. It is faith with bad works.

(2.) Have you ever petitioned the Court of Heaven for the removal of slavery? Were you sincere? Who will believe it, if you vote for the enemies of immediate abolition with one breath, and with the next, pray God to break every yoke, and let the oppressed fo free? How could he do it, without working a miracle? It is consistent to elect bad rulers, and then fast and pray over the corruptions of your government? Will not God regard such prayers as hypocritical? Can you pray him to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the spoiler, when you have just voted for a man who will protect the spoilers in the District of Columbia, and disregard the cry of the spoiled?

7. You are a professed abolitionist. What have you said to the South? "Emancipate your slaves immediately!" 'They will cut our throats.' 'EMANCIPATE!' 'We shall be bankrupted!' 'EMANCIPATE!' has been your reply. But if you vote for an enemy of immediate abolition to represent you in Congress, what will the South say to you? 'Thou that sayest another should'st not

[p. 1, col. 2]

steal, dost thou steal? Abolish your own slavery?' 'Oh, but the party?' 'Abolish your internal slavetrade!' 'Oh, the currency!' 'Reformation, like charity, should begin at home. Abolish!' 'Oh, the United States Bank - the monster!' 'Pluck the beam out of thine own eye, thou immediatist. Abolish!' 'Oh, the Loco Focos - the destructives!' 'Abolish!' is still their cry. And what is your reply? 'The currency is a paramount interest!' or 'the whigs or democrats must first be put down!' Ah, here's the rub! What! Must justice be stayed till the currency is regulated? Are abolitionists sold to the cotton bags? Are they the serfs of party? You have told the South that no circumstances could justify her continuance of slavery, and do you now plead circumstances of slavery, and do you now plead circumstances to justify yours? And such circumstances! The regulation of the currency, or the success of a party "paramount questions" to this? What! Money against men? Lucre against liberty! Human rights bartered for bank bills! The Bible sold to the ledger! The law of trade paramount to the law of God! Gold more precious than God's image! Men and women sold to appease the spirit of shop-keeping! Man-stealing rampant, that a party may be put down! Pennsylvania Avenue a slave mart, that Wall street may swarm with stock-jobbers! Poor families plundered and sundered, that rich families may roll in wealth, and riot in luxury! Human victims bound to the alter of mammon by the cords of the party! The internal slave trade protected, that the rate of exchange may improve! Blood for booty! Purity trampled down by party! The seventh commandment annihilated, that speculation may revive! Temples of the Holy Ghost sold for a United States' Bank! Heirs of God bartered for a sub-treasury! Justice plucked up, and the 'root of all evil' planted! The Currency first, Conscience last! First Riches, the Righteousness! God dethroned, and Gain crowned! Abolitionists! Is this your creed? Will you bind human victims to the alter of party? And will your hands light the sacrifice? Forbid it humanity! Will you regard the love of gold as paramount to the law of God? Shall party cords be stronger with you than the 'bonds' which cord you to the slave? May God speedily deliver him out of the hands of such friends. They are his worst enemies. They profess sympathy but practice cruelty. They sell him for money. Are we too severe? 'Who is here so base, that he would be a bondman! If any speak; for him have we offended.'

8. Don't be satisfied with a candidate who is in favor of the right petition and free discussion, but opposed to abolition. He respects your rights to get your votes, and trample 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 the 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! 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 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 it to you. You have wrung it from them by mighty struggles, and now they claim your votes for permitting you to enjoy your 'spoils!' Where were these free discussion gentlemen in 1835, when that right was trampled in the dust, in this city? Edward Curtis and Isaac L. Varian, who now ask your votes for Congress, were Vice Presidents of the great indignation pro-slavery meeting held in this city, in August 1835, to denounce us for freely discussing this question. Then when this right was invaded, and our lives jeaporded, was the time to have shown their attachment to free discussion. 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 the candidates know that if they ever get to Washington, or Albany, they must take an oath to support these rights? And do they claim your suffrages, on the ground that if you will place them in the national or state legislatures, they will claim your suffrages, 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 'principle' to those who are 'as much opposed to slavery as any body - but;' - while we 'go on unto' abolition! Our motto is - ONWARD!

[p. 1, col. 3]

9. Don't be wheedled into voting for A.B. (who is 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 override it for good. Don't 'take the least of two evils.' Take neither. If two men are offered us 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, 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 during the last session of Congress, J. M. Patton, and Waddy Thompson, or Ogden Hoffman, and Edward Curtis? Go for whom the slave would trust!

10. Don't say "there are no true men up as candidates (or, not enough to make a ticket,) and as somebody must be elected, we had better select the best." Every body is "up." Caucuses "put up" men (and very weak or bad ones, frequently,) and then, strange to say, free men feel under obligation to vote for them or none! We pray you to break this caucus collar off from your necks. This state affords many genuine friends of the slave, as competent, in any particular, for Governor, as Messrs. Marcy or Seward. This senatorial district furnishes numerous gentlemen, who practically hold to the equality of man, as fit to represent it in the State Senate, as Messrs. Tompkins or Furman. This city certainly can furnish four immediate abolitionists, as worthy to represent it on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, as any four of the eight candidates in nomination! So, too, of the thirteen members of Assembly. Throw aside the caucus collar, and select from THE PEOPLE a sufficient number of names, to complete the ticket.

11. By thus SCATTERING YOUR VOTES, they will not be lost. They will exert a great moral influence. They will be counted, and remembered. And, next year, the parties will be careful whom they put up. Your "scattered" testimony will illustrate your strong attachment to your principles, and soon, parties will be as ready to court [unreadable], as they now are to spurn it. Be sure, [unreadable] you VOTE.

12. In view of these suggestions, we state the following facts.

(1.) The candidates for Governor and Lietuenant Governor have been questioned, as you will see by the annexed correspondence. Read their answers carefully. Those of Marcy, Seward, and Tracy, are deadly hostile to liberty. They fail in every essential point. Blot their names from your ticket. Bradish's letter is noble. It should be written in letters of gold.. These letters are a touchstone. Shall they prove you to be pure gold, or base metal? They will reveal the secrets of many hearts. Bradish should receive the enthusiastic support of every friend of man. Seward, Marcy, and Tracy, are false to freedom, and freedom should be true. Let your right arm wither before it drops a ballot for either of them. Is this too severe? They are against the abolition of OUR Slavery. "Who is here so base that would be a bondman? If any, speak ; for him have we offended." They are against the right of suffrage in the colored man, as in the white. "Who is here so rude, that would not be a Roman? If any, speak; for him have we offended." They say, virtually, that the colored man has no patriotism, unless he have the aristocrat's "badge of merit" - property. "Who is here so vile, that will not love his country? If any, speak; for him have we offended." Too severe? Let Brutus, sworn on the Golden Rule, try the issue. He would not have voted for them. Will you? The letters of Seward and Bradish afford an opportunity for "whig abolitionists" to brilliantly illustrate their principles. Thousands of anxious eyes are upon them, - friends and foes - North and South.

(2.) The following questions were early put to the candidates of both parties for Congress, viz.

"1. Are you in favor of the immediate abolition, by Congress, of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia?

"2. Are you in favor of so regulating commerce between the several States, (by an act of Congress) as immediately to prohibit the inter-State slave-trade?

"3. Are you opposed to the admission of any new State to the Union, whose Constitution tolerates domestic slavery?

"4. Are you opposed to the annexation of Texas to the Union?"

It was highly proper that such questions should be propounded to these gentlemen. They ask

[p. 1, col. 4]

you for the power: and you asked them how they would use it. They ask that the slaves in the District, and in Florida, and the victims of the internal slave-trade, should be placed under their official keeping. It was natural, it was demanded by your humanity, that you should know how they would treat them. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES HAVE REPLIED. They are deaf to your call for opinions. Do you be deaf to their call for votes. They have treated your generous anxiety for the bondman with contempt. Will you confer dignity upon them? Will you put a weapon into their hands by which they [unreadable] the slave, [unreadable] you know how they will use it? By declining to answer such questions, they authorize you to suspect the worst. They ask for absolute authority for two years over the well-being of tens of thousands of outraged men. Will you confer it, till you know whether they will, "by authority," set their official heel on the neck of prostrate humanity? Would you smite the slave? No. Will you hire them to do it? They dodge your petitions. Do you dodge their nominations. They are dumb. Open your mouth against them. They choose to wrap their opinion on this momentous question, in darkness. There let them remain! No genuine abolitionist will give them an official opportunity to divulge them, tiil he first knows what they are. They show that they love darkness rather than light. Therefore, suspect the worst, and treat them accordingly. At best, their opinions are doubtful. You conduct should be certain. They are secret foes Reject them openly. Would either of the political parties vote for men of whose opinions concerning the currency they were doubtful? And will you be less anxious concerning men than they are in regard to money? No! Know your men, before you support them. If they will wrap themselves up in the mantle of their envied dignity, leave them alone with their glory. Our cause has nothing to hope and every thing to dread, from the election of either Messrs. Cambreleng, Hoffman, Moore, Curtis, McKeon, Grinnell, Varian, or Monroe. If the bleeding slave is to receive a fresh wound from any of these men, let others put the weapon into their hands. If any of these gentlemen should yet reply favorably, you will find their names on a ballot which will be forwarded to you to-night or Monday morning.

(3.) The following questions were early put to the two candidates, in nomination by the Whigs and Democrats, for the State Senate and to the twenty-six candidates for the Assembly : viz.: -

"1. Are you in favor of the immediate repeal of such laws of this State as permit slaveholders to introduce slaves and hold them here as such?

2. Are you in favor of enacting a law, which shall secure a trial by jury, to every person claimed in this State as a slave?

3. Are you in favor of so amending the Constitution of this State, as that civil rights shall not be granted or withheld according to complexion?

4. Are you in favor of the passage, (by the Legislature,) of resolutions declaring the power and duty of Congress, immediately to abolish slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and to prohibit immediately the inter-State slave trade ; and also, resolutions protesting against the annexation of Texas, or the admission to the Union of any State whose Constitution tolerates slavery?

The candidates for the SENATE have not replied. Of course, they will not receive your votes. A very few of the candidates for the ASSEMBLY have replied - one or two unfavorably, and two or three favorably to our views. Other replies are expected. These letters come to and hand so late, that it is impossible now to present them to you. A ballot, with the names of the gentlemen upon it who answer the above questions affirmatively, will be forwarded to you this evening, or, very early Monday morning. We trust you will vote for none other of the candidates in nomination, but fill up blanks in the ticket with the names of good men and true. We shall also furnish you with suitable ballots for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, Senators, and members of Congress.

Finally brethren ; be faithful to yourselves, and your cause. Don't you fail to be true, for fear some other abolitionist will be false. Do your duty. If others are recreant, it will be no excuse for you. Yeas, that fact calls for greater faithfulness from you. Set such false men a good example. The eyes of our opponents are watching us to see if we swerve. If we do, they will publish it to the world. If we permit those who answer our questions in a manner adverse to our opinions to receive as many votes as those who give us favorable replies, who will trust hereafter? We shall be regarded as faithless, and hypocritical, and shall be the reproach and the contempt of hones, and even dishonest men. We are closely watched. Those of you who signed the pledges circulated in August and September last, will, we doubt not, be found true to a man. That pledge is the sheet anchor of the

[p. 2, col. 1]

slave's hope. Shall it fail him? Perish the thought! Though all others are false, you will be faithful. Our friends in central and western New York, will stand firmly by their principles. Such are assurances from various quarters. Let us not be found recreant while others are unflinching. Let the city do its duty.

Don't be blinded by the dust, nor stunned by the noise of the conflict. Be calm and self possessed, during the three days of trial. Partizans, who regard party triumph more than the supremacy of justice will endeavor to whip you into the party traces, especially at the polls. They calculate upon this. They [unreadable] statements, to wheedle you into the support of badmen. The active electioneers of both parties will loudly affirm the abolitionism of all the men on each of their respective tickets. Tell tehm YOU KNOW BETTER ; FOR YOU HAVE QUESTIONED THEM, and THEY ANSWER FALSELY, OR ARE DUMB. Make up your mind ; GET YOUR BALLOT READY BEFORE GOING TO THE POLLS, and there stand by your decision. Get out all the true the true men of your acquaintance and urge them to go for the cause. Don't let an abolition vote remain at home. Be as active for God and humanity, as others are for gold and their party. When at the polls, and about to drop your ballot, listen to the kneeling slave in chains, as he says, "AM I NOT A MAN AND A BROTHER?" Your enemies, and the enemies of the enslaved, are in the field, battling for despotism. Strike one blow for the liberty. You wield

"That weapon which comes down as still
As snow flakes fall upon the sod;
Bur executes a freeman's will,
As lightening does the will of God!
Nor from its force, no bars nor locks
Can shield them: - 'tis the BALLOT BOX." S.

N. B. - We now inform the Anti-Slavery electors, that they can vote for Luther Bradish, for Lieut. Governor, and for George Zabriskie, James S. Stratton, John B. Scoles, Heman W. Childs, and Loring D. Chapin for Assembly. These are true men. They have answered right. All others are false. Fill up your tickets with true men.

In behalf of the Executive Committee of the New York Young Men's Anti-Slavery Society.

A. O. WILLCOX, Chairman.

THEO. McNAMEE, Secretary.

New York, Nov. 3, 1838.

Gubernatorial Correspondence.

LETTER TO CANDIDATES.

OCTOBER 1, 1838.

SIR: -

At a numerous meeting of our fellow-citizens at Utica on the 19th, 20th, and 21st 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 :

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

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

3rd. 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 those 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, who suffrages may be 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 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 [unreadable] 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.

[p. 2, col. 2]

REPLY OF MR. BRADISH

MOIRA, FRANKLIN Co., N. Y.,

13th Oct., 1838.

GENTLEMEN, -

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

"At a numerous meeting of our fellow-citizens at Utica, on the 19th, 20th, and 21st 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:

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

"2nd. Are you in favor of establishing all distinctions in the constitutional rights of the citizens of the State, founded [unreadable]?

"3rd. Are you 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?

I acknowledge the right of 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

1st. 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 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 inany 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 are clear and explicit; and we permit the party claiming, on his more 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 a 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 [unreadable] protection of her own citizens, as well as the dictates [unreadable] tice itself would require that we should extend to the [unreadable] claimed in this case, all the advantages of trial, which are secured to all others.

I am, therefore, without adverting to the questions 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.

2nd. Your second interrogatory embraces a question which was much agitated at the formation of the present Constitution of the State. In the full discussion 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 this 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 persevering 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 his 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 constitution, except in case of the colored man, citizenship, age, residence, military service, or labor on the highways, or an equivalent therefor, were constituted the bases of this right. To all these, in the case of the colored man, were added extended citizenship and 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, not the progress of liberal ideas brought any favorable change to him. He remains as to the right of suffrage, where the Constitution of 1821 left him ; subject to onerous conditions, from which the citizen is exempt.

[unreadable] 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, in 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.

[p. 2, col. 3]

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 possessed 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 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, an 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 [unreadable] 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 interested 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 in itself is wrong. It is inconsistent with the pervading spirit of the Constitution ; it 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 [unreadable]asserted. They doubtless thought it wise and necessary. But they lived in other and different times that 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 be safe, but would remove a fruitful source of heart-burning and disaffection - would educate 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, 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.

3rd. 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 empancipation ; 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.

These obligations of New York, in this matter to her sister slaveholding States, are clearly denned in that clause of the Constitution of the United States, above referred to, and are limited to two points, viz: 1st. 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 2nd. 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 3rd Section of the 7th Title of the 20th Chapter of the 1st 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 6th Section of the same Title provides that "any person not being an inhabitant of this State, who shall be travelling to or from, or pressing 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 gross abuses, and it is a subject of just complaint. But the 7th 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 mistaken courtesy, and a mis-placed liberality, that permits 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. Towards a sister State, I would exercise every act of liberality and courtesy, that did not involve a sacrifice of principle, or of some important public interest. Above all, I would abide by the compromises of the Constitution. But I would not extend them. If something he 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 con-

[p.2, col, 4]

stitution, 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 is 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 the 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 enlightened 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 breathe its 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 considerations and respect with which I have the honor to be,

Gentlemen,

Your friend and servant,

L. Bradish.

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

LT. GOV. TRACY'S REPLY.

OXFORD, October 26th, 1838.

Gentlemen, - I have received your letter presenting to me the following interrogatories:

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

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

3rd. 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?

The first of them embraces a subject which has been discussed in the judicial tribunals of this State, and our Supreme Court has decided that the law we now have, giving a trial by jury to persons claimed as fugitive slaves, is unconstitutional. The question has been before the Court for the Correction of Errors, but was not decided. If it should be again brought there, while I remain a member of that Court, I shall deem it my duty to hear it argu'd, to examine it faithfully, and to endeavor to arrive at a correct decision. You, I trust, would not desire me, as a member of that Court, to prejudge the matter and go to the hearing of the cause with a judgement pronounced beforehand, by declaring an opinion, or giving a pledge what my judgement would be. - If our law is constitutional, I have no desire to have it repealed.

To your second question I answer, that the constitution of this State makes a distinction between white citizens and persons of color, respecting the exercise of the elective franchise. I have concurred with the members of the Convention, and with the majority of the people of this State, who ratified it, in the wisdom of this distinction, and do not perceive any good reason for abolishing it.

Our statute declares "Every person born within this state, whether white or colored, is free; every person who shall hereafter be born with this state, shall be free ; and every person brought into this state as a slave, except as authorised by this title, shall be free." There is an exception, which allows travellers, not inhabitants of this state who are travelling to or from, or passing through this state, to bring with them any persons with them any persons lawfully held in slavery, and to take such persons with them from this state, provided they have not remained here more than nine months. This section, having reference only to travellers who are non-residents of the state, is, I suppose, the one to which your third interrogatory refers. There are reasons, which must be obvious oo every one, in favor of such a provision. I am not in favor of repealing it.

I am, very respectfully, your ob't serv't,

John Tracy.

TO WILIAM JAY and
GERRIT SMITH, Esqrs.