ed his affinity with Anti-Slavery Societies, and said, that in support of any legislative measure for the abolition of Slavery, his suffrage should never be Wanting.
But the character of the Administration may be inferred from other circumstances.
First.—The Slave Power continues to hold its lion's share in the cabinet, and in the diplomatic posts abroad, thus ruling the country at home, and representing it in foreign lands.
The number of votes cast in the Slave States, exclusive of South Carolina, where the electors are chosen by the Legislature, at the last Presidential election, was 845,050, while the number of votes cast in the Free States was 2,027,006.
And yet there are four persons in the cabinet from the Slave States, and three only from the Free States, while a slave-holding President presides over all. The diplomatic representation of the country at Paris, St. Petersburg, Vienna, the Hague, Brussels, Frankfort, Madrid, Lisbon, Naples, Chili, Mexico, is now confided to p
he Constitution, because, among other things, it established a tribunal without juries, a Star Chamber as to civil cases.
Many united in his opposition, and on the recommendation of the First Congress this additional safeguard was adopted as an amendment.
Now, regarding the question as one of property, or of Personal Liberty, in either alternative the Trial by Jury is secured.
For this position authority is ample.
In the debate on the Fugitive Slave Bill of 1817– 18, a Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Smith, anxious for the asserted right of property, objected, on this very floor, to a reference of the question, under the writ of Habeas Corpus, to a judge without a jury.
Speaking solely for property, these were his words:
This would give the Judge the sole power of deciding the right of property the master claims in his slaves, instead of trying that right by a jury, as prescribed by the Constitution. He would be judge of matters of law and matters of fact; clothed with a