Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-03-07

Congress had the same power over he
subject now that Il bad then. The great
difference is, that act conduced TO the in
terests Of slavery, while what Is now de-
manded would clash with those interests.
That act was a protective tariff for the do
nestle trade. The SHAREHOLDERS saw it and
poured out their crocodile tears over the
victims Of the horrid traffic. Nos ofmen,
perhaps, were more clamorous against the
foreign slave trade, setting forth its cruel |
ties and denominations, than the very men |
the Shareholders Of the Sotth-whose
highest motive was to render more lucra-
tive the domestic traffic, which is now char
acterized by about every enormity of the
middle passage. The petitions of these
men for the benefit of slavery were heard.
and read, and referred, and considered-aye,
and responded to by the yea and amen of
Congress! --~
Again: Congress has power to regulate
commerce between the states-and the COM
merce in human chattels as we'll as any
other. Let the internal traffic be interdict-
ed and slavery will die on its own dunghill
in seven years. If all the slaves born in
Virginia must die in Virginia, they will
soon eat up their masters; and the planta-
tons Of the farther South will lie untitled.
The speaker admitted that power was
one thing-the propriety of exercising it
another. He had the power to jump off
from Middlebury bridge into Otter Creek,
but he might not be justified in doing it, ex-
cept to save the life of a perishing fellow
being. Congress has the power to prohibit
the transportation of horses from Virginia,
or any other State, into Pennsylvania; and
in the case of civil war between Pennsyl-
vania and the general government there
might be great propriety in the exercise OF
such power The nature of the system Of
slavery-its evils and denominations justify
and demand the exercise of every constitu-
tioral power for its removal. Heaven and
earth call upon this audience TO do their
duty, and to exercise their constitutional
powers and privileges against this common
foe of our country and of all human in
terests.
J. MlLLleAN doubted the correctness o
the doctrine contained in the resolution
= True, Congress had the constitutional
power, and had exercised it to prohibit thu
foreign trade in 1908; but whether it haC
h the power to prohibit the domestic traffic
: was a mooted point. The Constitution o
V the American Anti-Slavery Society limit
our operations to constitutional measure
d for the abolition Of slavery-thus implying
y that there are some things that are not TO b
done. He thought the resolution went to
far.
=, C. L. KNAPP wished to give his reason
;, for presenting the resolution. Ii would
observed that the propositions Of the resc
=, luton are of a negative character. II wa
the object Of the penman of it to preser
- something to meet the common, standin
= objection, that the Constitution of the [
~ States imposes insuperable barriers to OF
operations. He asked the audience to G
back, and consider the circumstances, an
look at the men who framed this ConstitI
n. ton. Is it to be supposed that Jefferson
o. Franklin, Pinckney, Jay, and other sue
n spirits went straight from independent
Hall to the Council chamber, and frame
a an instrument with a view to the perpetu
"a ton of slavery in the United States. Ir
III possible! 1t would have been undoiT
at their own work. II is very fashionable,
in this day, at the South, and too much so
CT the North, to run to the Constitution as
an protector Of Slavery against Anti-Slavel
nd He was sick of the clamor: He viewed t
,bt Constitution itself 10 be an Anti-Slave
Ity document.
ga He asked for the passage of the reso
red ton, not because it happened to have be
of originally draughted by him, but because
ind believed it to embrace certain great, funo
be mental principles which ought to be writ,
by out in letters of light before the world.
the E. D. BARRIER considered that both
, of supporters and the opposers Of the reso
hu- ton were right. If the Constitution /
M prohibited the abolition of slavery, then
IN. South itself would not have had the pov
The to remove it. The Constitution was a m
-ork perfect anomaly-at once pro-slavery q
an anti-slayery. 1t was manifest from the
tom ter of the Constitution, and from all
Pm, circumstances, that it was the design of
he trainers 10 lea'e INC Oo"''''u''on l" ou'