Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-01-06


Virginia 10 The GafoiiBas, or Georgia -
Wha, interest could The federal govern
mcnt have had in doug so Was II AN
object TO prevent the migration of slaves
10 states where there was no slavery II
SO, Was not the power of eilecting thai
OBJECT IN the states themselv =! Was
not the clause OF u relates solely 10 slaves
/ as * commended, introduced for the bcne-
iit oi The Slave-holIing states Aud
wha, other object could IL have had IN
relation To them except the postpone meni
OF provision prohibiting the importa-
ton oi slaves from foreign parts? II
would be sttauge, indeed, had a power
TO prevent removal from one state la auo-
Their been evenly the constitution, since
IL Would have prevented the saluIary dis
persioh OF Tie slave population. Nor is
" les singular, that the exercise of II
shOuid nave Deeh postponed 10 the year
lsoS, without any all Quaie cause, and
remain unexeried from that period 10 the
present day
Nor does the construction contended
Tor, CONSIST with the fair Interpretation oi
Tie clause IN question. Let II be observ
ed that II contains no grant Of powcr. On
me contrary, II is a limitation OF power.
III IS NOT dondlive, bui restrictive. II is
restrictive OF some other power before
granted. What then is tie pow or which
n does restrict! Is tiere any part of the
several clauses by which powers are con
ferred on the general government, whence
II conld possibly have been Implied Thai
Congress could prohibit the migration
OF slaves from one slate 10 another 3
There is none! Where then is the ne
cessiiy OF the limitation oil a pow or Incl,
nad no existence Ii would have been
futile and absurd.
On the other hand il we understand
III" Term migration as relating 10 tree
persons alone, or even 10 The Introduction
oI slaves from foreign parts, The restric-
tive clause became important and essen
nal since without II " importalions"
might have been observation-disclosures The now
eric regulate commerce, anu 'miyraiiop."
under that which related TO naiurallza-
ton.
Let us pause here for a moment, 10 re-
ii"ci on The nature OF the proposition we
are examining. The question whether
The impress, rIpilble right of self govern
ment shall be Invaded ;-wheiher i, The
obligation OF treaties shall be violated.
aud The constitution iniriuged and whe-
! ther our brethren who have seiiIed IN the
| territory OF Missouri, upon tie faith OF
| lie PROVISIONS OF The convention of 1903
shall no" be compelled To submit TO new
and degrading conditions TO Justify
| all this, clause lii the constitution Is
relied upon. l. II clearand uneauivocai
Does II admit 10 Interpretation winch
consists With The sacred and lmprescrip
! iiOie right of self government IL IL
does NOT, then indeed the charter would
not he charter Of liberty 10 Missouri
II would be CALLING cham which thpy
| have moi learnt 10 bear in The land from
whence they migrated
But, let us not, by false principles OF
constructions, convert tile cnnsIiiuIIon of
the United States-to us, the benign ge
mus OF liberty, and The messenger of
harmony and peace, into IA malignant
damon, that loads US with oppression
and cnaIDs, and lights the torch of dis.
cord throughout The land. Let us seek
any interpretation of the less important
| Clauses OF tins compact between the
STATES, rather than those whIt II are incun.
| sislent wltn the freedom =. Mchit brea,hes.
| anu the forbearance and moderation Will,
winch IS animated. A borc all, let our
rulers approach This subject with The M st
cautious cIrcumspeciion. They NAV call
mo acti0n lie most Earring principles of
Tins confederacy (; they may excite con
fention upon the molly subject on which
there exists an irraconciiable and DANCE
| ro1s diversity of sentiment: they NAV
touch string that will vibrale dlscords
10 the latest posieIiiy.
A SOUTHRON.
Boston WeDlO1i0L The doctrinos adj