The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1841-12-22


in the competency of the States, as well as OF
the United States, enquiry arises, whether
ther is any law of the latter regulating CON-
merce, to which the bill proposed by your Com
mittee, would5.be repugnant.. In determining
whether there would be collision between the
Bill proposed, and law of Congress affecting
commerce, the question would be, whether
there is constitutional repugnancy and in
compatibility, as mere inconvenience cannot by
implication, be permitted to divest a right OF
sovereignty. Occasional interference in the
exercise of concurrent jurisdiction, is mot
enough to infer constitutional contradiction, and
the exclusion of State authority. The right Of
the States TO enact regulations that affect com
merce, and even impose restraints upon it, is
illustrated by quarantine laws, port laws, and
others Of like nature. But your Committee
are not apprised of any law of the United States,
regulating commerce, with which the Bill pro-
posed would be found to conflict.
But the Bill proposed by your Committee, as
they conceive does not seek to regulate Com
merce, and cannot be said, with proprjety, to
affect it in anywise. 1t proposes a measure of
mere Municipal Police, a regulation of that
species which no one has denied to the States.
But although it may be conceded, that the
legislation proposed, does not contravene the
power of Congress, legitimatcly to regulate
Commerce, yet it may be supposed, that it does
not consist with the privileges and immunities
that are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution,
to the citizens of State, in all other States of
the Union. To this point, it will be permitted
your Committee, to address brief argument.
Without such provision in the Constitution of
the United States, as that here alluded to, it
would have resulted from the Sovereignty of the
several States, that the citizens Of each, would
bear to all the other States, the relations of ali
ems, and be subject to the inconvenience and
disabilities of that relation, and to confer up
on them, not citizenship itself, but the rights Of
citizenship, was its purpose and object. But
the @ privileges and immunites contemplated,
are fundamental in their, nature, and embrace,
in the language of an eminent jurist, "protec-
ton by the Government, the enjoyment of life
and liberty, with the right to acquire and pos
sess property of every kind, and to pursue and
attain happiness and safety, subject to suclI re-
straints as the Government. may justly rrc-
scribe for the general good of the whole"
But your Committee, presume the question
is whether the citizens Iof each State, should
enjoy in every other State the privileges and
that are conferred on its own citi-
zens. If it be ascertaned that a State may
bestow, on classes of its own citizens, priv-
leges and irnmunities that are not common to
the mass, then it is apprehended, the point is
made clear. The. qualification of the Elective
Franchise which exists in some of the States,
and once existed in this, the eligibility TO Office,
charter laws, and the right 10 practice the learned
professions, are examples Of the power of a.
State to create distinctions amongst her citizens,
and many others might be embraced in the emu
meration. The principle is that State cannot
deprive the citizens of another State, of the
privileges and immunities of which it cannot
1vest its own citizens. But determinations be-
tween citizens of State, and those of other
States, are Of frequent occurrence in all the
States, and the rgh. to create them, is OF un-
questionable validity. ~
But the Bill proposed by your Committee,
seeks merely to take from the citizens of other
States, the immunity which is not enjoyed by
citizens of this State; and to impose upon them,
restrictions which are endured by its own citi-
zens
South Carolina has, however, declared in the
solemn form OF LegJativc cnac ment her views
)f these provisions OF the Constitution, as well
Is OF her ponce regulations, ana as they nave
not yet been impugned, your Committee take
cave to decline further vindication of them
By the Statute of 1923, any vessel from another
State or foreign port, having on board any free
negroes or persons of color, as cooks, stewards,
mariners, or in any other capacity, is prohibited
rom entering any port or harbour of this State,
lnder sanctions which have been found adequate
o the suppression OF the evil that was, sought to
,e corrected. Let, then, those who it may con-
;ern to know the policy.of this State, and her
of her rights as member of these
United States, consult her Statute Book, and if
hey are wise. they will not offend against her
policy or her institutions.
In testimony Of the high confidence which
South Carolina reposes in the Counsels of Vir-
yinia, and a manifestation of her determination
o cooperate with that Commonwealth, and 9TH
,r States, in maintaining, by all proper methods,
IN institution in which she has common inter-
st, your Committee beg leave to Report the
Bill referred TO them, which is copy OF the Vir-
,inia Law. A. BURT, Chai nan.
Mortgage Sale.
will sell on the first Monday in January next, at