Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-02-16

.gned for the protection of slave property These
are the principal provisions of the bill For tns oe''
your Committee refer to the bill itself :.
The power Of the Legislature to pass such Jaw ~
the opinion of your Committee, IS very clear yel o
point Of so much Importance, 1t may not DC n,P,'p "
place it's constitntionay in view when VIII oeiy ie
fntaton The Constitution established as ITS pre-
ambe declares ssin order TO form more perfect uho
Establish Justice, domestic tranquility Prosue
for the common defence, promote the general wea'e
and to secure the blessing of liberty
Il was foreseen, that the intimate commerce. I
trading intercourse which the Constitution eslao"s"
between the States, would greatly fac,tate .he esoa
of criminals from State INTO another, ana ~
multiply the means Of flight to the slaves OF .ne H.
ern States. And the Constitution nnipneu .,oh
States from making treaties with each otneI ~ ~,
means these dangers could be best PROVIDED ehoh
4wo nrovsions were inserted in that instrument w,e
were designed to afford complete guard asan H"., IS
dangers; and to the States from Tue , 'rhs ons
providing such would be less cohseh'en ,l in tho
made il the duty fevery state to surrehoci .' 80
state where the offence was committed, all
Justice charged with "treason, felony 0! othsl ei'c,
npon the demand Of the Executive OF the State TON
which snch fugitive had fed. The other pronoitea .,c
states from passing any law regulation by which the
recap,ion OF runaway slaves should be INSTRUCTED anu
provided for the delivery of such slave TO ms owner
upon claim sumuarily made out these protecN:, Nv
provisions been dsregarded by the state Oh
York in manner TO endanger the rights Of the people
OF this State, and to put in peril the oomestic ~
tranquility of her Such being The case, view
rights she could not complain if we should refuse 70
let restrain us from protecting them But as cea as
this proposition is, are not driven 70 ca'n II. pio
lection. Fortunately we have tne means % seo I t
within our.own power, which Will be enectua ana 'e
constitutionaity of which cannot be doubted
Tha, the States of this Union are sovereign ana IN
dependent united by the Constitution OF the " states,
which is compact between them, and are possessed
of all mowers which belong such States, excepting
those the exercise of which delegated to the General
Government is a question not open for argument IN
Virginia The compact itself provides, that all power,
not delegated prohibited to the States, ere reserved
TO the States or the people. The power of defending
us from external and foreign dangeris delegated Du'
the power of protecting internal peace ana Oh Sc
curing the property of the czen reserved 70 Tue
States 1t would therefore seem that the right OF any
State pass such law the one IN question,
ed to protect the property of the citizen from
is UNREASONABLE. But it may be supposed oy some
that it is incompatible with the provisions OF the Con-
stitution which delegates Congress the right 10 re-
gulate commerce between the States; or that II con-
fcts with the Cd section of 4h article of the Consu'
ton of the United States.
Wherever power not in its nature exclusive, IS de
legated the General Government but not prohibited
to the States, concurrent in Congress and the state
Legislature and the consttutionality of State law
passed under such power, does not come IN question
until the law of the State is found to conflict with
the law Of Congress. Though the power to regulate
commerce is delegated to the General Government
it is not prohibited to the States except fer they
are prohibited from laying any ilnposts or duties on
imports and exports, or on tonnage. The power to
regulate is therefore concurrent, and the
constitutionaty of law of a State, enacted under
that power, does not arise until 1t IS found 10 con-
fct with law Of Congress passed under the same
power. But your Committee will not go INTO any ar
gument to establish these propositions nor will they
discuss the question which law ought YIELD in case
like this should the laws Of Congress and of State
Legislature be found to conflict 1t IS not necessary
that should be DONE For, admitting that the power
to regulate commerce is exclusively vested IN Con-
gress and part of it be exercised by State, yet
t.t,,t.o Of lau
though it may have indirect and considerable niu'
upon commerce, until 1t IS shewn that the power
pass such law is derived only from the power TO
regulate Hence 1t is that even those who IN
that the commercial power exclusively vested IN
Congress, have admitted the constitutionay OF qua
rantine laws, inspection laws, those which respect
turnpike roads, canals, ferries &c. though they have
considerable influence commerce. But such per-
sons derive the right Of the State pass such laws not
from the concurrent power of the States over COM
merce, but from that of powers reserved to the
States, among which is its right to regulate its domes-
tic police its domestic trade and to protect the health
and property of its citizens. But the law IN question,
is not u regulation of legitimate commerce. II is a
police regulation, designed to prevent a medium OF
from being prostituted to unlawful purposes.
Our Committee, however, will not be betrayed into
further argument this point The consttutionality
of similar laws involving the principles, have been
universally admitted that it would be superfuous.
The quarantine laws which have been passed by
ly all the maritime States the laws passed prior to
1905, prohibiting the importation of slaves, the State
laws prohibiting the circulation of incendiary pubIca-
tons by mail, the pilot laws, the inspection laws OF the
States, &c, &C. all involve the principle n Y ork
herself has her pilot laws; she has her health laws, by
which all vessels coming from any port South of Cape
Henopen, quarantneI and compelled TO pay fees.
In her cct for the inspection of pot pearl ashes the
inspector authorized to enter board any ship, &c
to search for pot pearl ashes improperly shipped for
expectation, and such be found he is required to seize
them and sell them for the benefit Of the State Treasu
ry. Before 1908, New York passed law prohibiting
the importation or snportation of slaves. Virginia has
enacted similar laws, and have most Of the States.
Their right to pass them has not been questioned and
the right to enforce them is incident to their right to
pass them.
The language of the I'd section of the 4th article is
very explict and about its meaning, there is room
for question 1t declares that s'the citizens Of each
State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunites
neral citizenship provides that the citizen of nc
State shall be treated alien in any State. The
privileges and immuntes, of which State cannot
deprive the citizens of another, are the Fundamental
privileges and immunities-the right to hold pro-
perty, sue in our courts, to enjoy the protection
of law while within our territory &c, &c. But this
bill does not deprive citizen of New York of any
right OF which a citizen Of Virginia cannot be de-
prIyed We can enact statutes TO prevent citizens
from violating our laws and might PROFESSIONALLY
discriminate in them between such citizens could
violate them with impunity, and such could not
And III such case, such discrimination would be
proper No citizen of Virginia violate any Of our
laws relating to slave population and escape their
penalties; and this law only places citizens of New
York in the condition. The proprlety and const
nationality of the bill accompanying this report having
been demonstrated your Committee entertain the hope
that it may become law.
TWENTY-SIXTH CONGREss--.2d SESSION
in SENATE.
Thursday, february H. ls4l.