ratified by three-fourths of the States--States already Free--and
Kentucky refuses to ratify it, upon what principle of right or law would
we be justified in taking this Slave-property of the people of Kentucky?
Would it be less than stealing?"

And Farnsworth met this idea--which had also been advanced by Messrs.
Ross, Fernando Wood, and Pruyn--by saying: "What constitutes property?
I know it is said by some gentlemen on the other side, that what the
statute makes property, is property. I deny it. What 'vested right'
has any man or State in Property in Man? We of the North hold property,
not by virtue of statute law, not by virtue of enactments. Our property
consists in lands, in chattels, in things. Our property was made
property by Jehovah when He gave Man dominion over it. But nowhere did
He give dominion of Man over Man. Our title extends back to the
foundation of the World. That constitutes property. There is where we
get our title. There is where we get our 'vested rights' to property."

Touching the ethics of Slavery, Mr. Arnold's speech on the same occasion
was also able, and in parts eloquent, as where he said: 'Slavery is
to-day an open enemy striking at the heart of the Republic. It is the
soul and body, the spirit and motive of the Rebellion. It is Slavery
which marshals yonder Rebel hosts, which confront the patriot Armies
of Grant and Sherman. It is the savage spirit of this barbarous
Institution which starves the Union prisoners at Richmond, which
assassinates them at Fort Pillow, which murders the wounded on the field
of battle, and which fills up the catalogue of wrong and outrage which
mark the conduct of the Rebels during all this War.

"In view of all the long catalogue of wrongs which Slavery has inflicted
upon the Country, I demand to-day, of the Congress of the United States,