Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1837-02-07


adopted by can aged minister" is, that Con-
gress, under tho grant of power in the Const-
tuition ITO regulate commerce with foreign na-
tons, and among the several states and with
the Indian tribes" is competent 10 prohibit the
internal slave trade. "Cephas" has started
the grand objection to the doctrine, to wit that
the power to "regulato" cannot ~ power to
destroy; and it is an objection which seems to
be fatal. If it is not fatal in this instance,
then ii is not in another precisely like it Con-
greas is 10 "coin money, regulate the value
thereof, and of foreign coin.n Will it be con-
tended seriously that 1t may pass law making
coin valuccss, or destroying it 2 In years gone
by, Congress, on the authority Of the clause
authorizing 1t 10 regulate commerce, enacted
systems of prohibition and non-intercourse :
this was iq measure destroying commerce,
but 1t was for limited period and for the pur-
pose OF carrying out an object clearly icithin
its power: and then the right Of Congress to
lays perpetual embargo was resisted, says Mr..
Story in his work on the Constitution, because
il was I" an annihiiation, and not regulation
OF commerce." Does not the same argument,
with great force, apply to the question in hand
But it 10 not the intention to argue the point
rather inclined TO seek light, than to attempt
TO give ii, the writer would suggest questions
for the examination of others. 1t has been dc.
cided by the Supreme Court Of the United
States, Gibbons vs.. Ogden, Wheaton 1873, }
that I" the power to regulate commerce extends
TO every species Of commercial intercourse G.
tween the United States and foreign nations,
and among the several states''-and in the
same case the power to regulate" is defined
to be " the power to prescribe the rule by which
commerce is TO be governed" Evidently, by
this decision, the internal slave trade, uhat is
JetOeea The states, but not between different
parts oil one state,) is a matter with which
Congress has something TO do; but can it dc
any thing more than to define the manner in
which that trade is TO be carried on !? Meth
or in the journal Of the convention which form.
ed the Constitution, in the debates, in the Fed
erallst, in the discussio ms in Congress, nor in
any work upon the Cons ttuton, as at present
apprised, is there a siagle word to be found re-
| lative to the power now claimed over this parti-
cular subject. The inquirer is LEFT, then, 10
consult the Constitution itself, the circumstan.
ces under which il was formed and the known
or probable intention Of its trainers, before he
can decide on this question. Ii strikes me
that very cursory examination will lead eve
ry one seriously TO apprehend, if it will not
thoroughly convince, that il never was the in
tention Of the trainers Of the Constitution, nor
oil the people who adopted it, 10 confer upon
Congress any such control over the subject oil
slavery as is contended for by Mr.. Stewart
| The word slauery is not in the Constitution,
nor the words slave trade even the right 10
prohibit the importation of slaves from foreign
countries after 1908, was couched in term OF
extreme delicacy-the general term "persons."
Why this delicacy, and that, too, when men,
Der of the convention (Mr. MARTINI tells US
that this article was intended to apply only TO
the importation of slaves from foreign coun.
tries, ifthe intention then was to confer upon
Congress unlimited power with respect 10
! savery7 The truth is, and it is part of the
history Of the Constitution, that the power 70
prohibit the foreign slave trade was obtained
only by compromise the Southern states op.
posed ii and the Northern insisted eventual.
ly the Northern states agreed TO give the cub.
ject Of the foreign slave trade respite of TWEEN.
ty years, from 1888 TO 1908, on condition that
: the Southern states would grant clause in
the Constitution allowing Congress to pass
navigation acts This was the bargain in the
convention, ard thus this part Of the constitu.
ton was formed; is it probable, then, that the
very men who made this bargain, at the very
time, and in the same Constitution, intended Il
put in the HANDS of Congress weapon inf
ni.ely more dangerous TO slavery, than was the
power 10 abolish The foreign slave trade? Il
il was not the intent of the trainers Of the con.
stitutlon SO 10 do, then it becomes well mean
ing men seriously 10 inquire how far any con-
siruciion Of the Constitution now, contrary 10
tho intent of the convention of 'SS and Of the
people who ratiliedits doings, is TO be sanction
cd. Much as we abhor slavery, we would pay
u sacred regard TO the Constitution.
sxs.anA4a-nsuEAzz<<aazaz.zz.
When the Emperor of China dies, all his
subjects are prohibited from marrying, or