Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-12-23

encrnachinenls. The poor slave aud the
free rian Of colo: are sufficiently protected
ny the states. The states cam give Ia
The latter The right IL sue :md be suc,!,
Nc. and can pro;eci ihrn' IN every thing
absolutely necessary 10 personal ccmfOr,
and The preservation Of life and properly /:
eau confer on them every thing except
the great character OF equality ina All res
poets wiih The Whites. Did We. SAID Mr..
=. ever think i necessary To irrn a con.
,iPuefacy Tor tie security al Our properly,
our lives, or ct The corrs.', administration
of civil lawS2 No: ne looked Ia Eurnpe ::
We saw her map cui Up into snail squares
ana patches OF territory every ma; inn
hostile or rival 10 lis neighbour, finding
All enemy wherever il crossed a line. We
ioresaw, thai, among our states. too, ii
ihey remained separate and disunitvd
sovercignties, there would be collisions Of
interest, on territorial and commercial
questions, &c. producing luminosity and
vars: "e catered into the fedefaiive
compact - enable rs To avoid ii border
war at home, and Ia resist aggression
from abroad. ln relation Ia ihrs. people
OF color. nothing was Intended by that
compact, their personal liberty and pri-
vale property being abundaniiy secured
by Inc laws at the several states. This
was thc substance OF Mr.. BIS argument
OF this point
with regard 10 precedpn's, Mr.. 3. said,
he Was not much IN the habit oil refer
ring 10 'heM-he wished he cou.d never
hear Tie word IN this house. Bat il ap-
peared 10 hun In be modest request
when arguments drawn from them were
continuity used, TO be allowed to call
one In his and. What, then, were the
precedenis bearing on This question =? 1t
is provided, by The consultation Of The
United Safes. that Congress may es,ab.
lish an uniform rule OF NATURALIZATION.
Dad Congress ever pass law TO nalu
ralZ' people al color! o. The contrary,
every word oi every naturalization lat
speaks OF whtes only. If, SAID he, We
HAD gone abroad On suci principles of
knight erran.rv ii we had broken down
the barriers which S"uaraie The races Of
men. and. like The French Convention,
rendered fraternity 10 them aud all the
world, NC should have had a short and
villa career of II, sc. Mr.. b sent OH 10
say, that slaiare, aud other corporal quail
ties, had never been made the cause of
distinctions IN society but color had
constantly, tor centuries past, been a
mark or Discrimination u bad been the
'a'e vi one color 10 b. perpetudity subOr-
dnale 10 The other
Bni vas Tins the only illustration 80 be
drawn from the Constitution 2 No; Nhcre
was anothrr. Congress are Invested with
The power 10 provide for organizing,
armlng, and discipiuIng the Miniu.-
Who, said Mr., r. are the Militia The
great body Of every People, WHO are ca
pable OF military duiy, subject To such
Tputtl.tltnpc iaal
Men may he exempted, from causes paro
ticular Ia themselves: But the term Mi
iIila includes The great body OF People
contributing TO the defence OF their com
mon country. Why lave Congress, in
their laws ia execution of This provision,
introduced The same words "wli.e mrn?"
II cO!ored persons are entitled! 10 all the
rights which belong 10 our fellow ci,IzeDs
o. different complexion, how is il, lhat
whilst every white man is authorized 10
bear arms, thar description OF men rs tx
clGsed II she0s that thrve is something
IN color. more than III other cITuumslau-
ces. which separate lie Two classes
Mr. Is. IN recapifulaiing his arg Imenta
on Tins head, SAID, Ihai he trusted he had
sad enough 10 SlIew that tree people OF
color were mol citizens, in the same lighl
as "hi'e persons are citizens, in The res.
psci'Ve States. He pIoccrded Then 10
brake d few Incidental remarks in regard
10 other views Of This subject.
Suppose. Tor arguments sake, what il
bad beeu the purpose of the remarks he
ha'i already made, tn deny. Give 10 the
opponents al Missouri The aspect Of his
question Which is the worst for lis friends.
CGucede thai one clause Of The consii;u-
hon OF Missouri IL in conflict with The
constitution OF the Uaiied States. Does
thanu'liiy otOne clause destroy the whole
inStrnmcuI? II was painful to him TO
appeal tn profc> sionai principles in this
House, bul II waS consistent with reason
a. well "a plain aud wpil kaown maxim
OF law, that single vicious clause does
not viiidie whole Instrument. Are we
To have here, said Mr. 3. in TIE discuss
son oi great fedora! concerns, degree
OF technlcallty 10 ohjeciIous ia a cousll
tuition OF state which court OF law
would not sustain 20 regard 10 amy written
instrument Because one clause OF a
hundred and fifty anOnmis 10 nothing, do
the remaining hundred and forty nine
also come TO nothing, and all become
han On Tie contrary, MIR b said, ne
hat always understood that, nothing he
my taken l:om nothing, nothing remains.
tHf- y. Illustrated his views on iiiIS point
by stating parallel case. Congress has
clear power lay import dulles: il is
Just as clear That Congress has not The
power TO lay export duties. Suppose the
chairman OF the committee Of commerce
should bring in bill and il were possible
thai The oil should pass congress, one
clause Of whic9 imposed sn export duty,
ana another an import daly. Would
that clause which exceeds the powers Of
Congress make void The other, which is
clearly within them? Perhaps, gentle
men might say, this was an extreme case:
granted, Mr.. Il. said he would pui
dHOihCr. IhPfr were certain powers Of
4 IN. tr.tatnrl.l1ut,f I.t.f. 1. IL