hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 38 0 Browse Search
Gen McClellan 35 1 Browse Search
James Carson 21 1 Browse Search
France (France) 18 0 Browse Search
Maryland (Maryland, United States) 16 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 16 0 Browse Search
Louis Napoleon 14 0 Browse Search
M. Mercier 12 0 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 10 0 Browse Search
David Hunter 10 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: may 29, 1862., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 27 total hits in 14 results.

1 2
s (chairman of the District Committee) said that as the gentleman from Massachusetts evidently desired the investigation of what was a constitutional question, it was not proper to direct the resolution to the District Committee. He himself was not a lawyer, and there were others on the District Committee who were not. He suggested that the resolution be directed to the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Sumner accepted the suggestion, and the resolution, as thus amended, was then passed. Mr. Wilmot, of Pa. introduced a bill requiring an oath of allegiance in certain cases and for other purposes. [This bill requires all persons claiming fugitive slaves to take the oath of allegiance, and swear to their past loyalty; and on conviction of false swearing shall be punished with imprisonment not less than five years, and fined not less than five hundred dollars. It also allows blacks to testify in their own behalf]. It was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. The co
nstitutional seizure as fugitive slaves, or from seizure by disloyal persons, was taken up. Mr. S. said we had all been shocked in the past few days by scenes in connection with slave catchers from adjoining neighborhoods attempting to carry off human beings. He referred to the fact that commissioners here had in the last few hour determined that cross-examination was not to be allowed in the great matter of human freedom. He held that as neither the act of Congress of 1798 nor that of 1850 said a word about the District of Columbia or any Territory, but spoke solely of delivering fugitives escaping from one State into another State, they did not, therefore, apply to the District of Columbia. His lessons at the bar had taught him that law was always to be construed in favor of liberty and humanity, and such was doubtless the proper construction of the fugitive slave law in this case. The courts of this District probably had power to dispose of this subject, but indicated distr
Federal Congress.Senate Washington, May 23. Mr. Lane, of Indiana, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the resolution to inquire into the expediency of providing compensation to officers and soldiers of the 20th Indiana regiment, who sustained losses of baggage and other property at Platteras Inlet, reported that the loss was decasioned by no fault on their part, but for want of sufficient transportation, being out numbered and overpowered by the rebels, with a total loss of $1,723.29. The committee report a bill in accordance with this report. Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, introduced a bill to provide for the relief of poor but unfortunate debtor, and the distribution of their property among their creditors, by the establishment of a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States. Referred to the Judiciary Committee. On motion of Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, the secretary of the Senate was directed to furnish printed copies of the
hington from unconstitutional seizure as fugitive slaves, or from seizure by disloyal persons, was taken up. Mr. S. said we had all been shocked in the past few days by scenes in connection with slave catchers from adjoining neighborhoods attempting to carry off human beings. He referred to the fact that commissioners here had in the last few hour determined that cross-examination was not to be allowed in the great matter of human freedom. He held that as neither the act of Congress of 1798 nor that of 1850 said a word about the District of Columbia or any Territory, but spoke solely of delivering fugitives escaping from one State into another State, they did not, therefore, apply to the District of Columbia. His lessons at the bar had taught him that law was always to be construed in favor of liberty and humanity, and such was doubtless the proper construction of the fugitive slave law in this case. The courts of this District probably had power to dispose of this subject, bu
1 2