Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1841-03-31

The correspondent VI lHC A''SuiS
rer. thus states the position Of Messrs Clay and
Webster in their speeches before the Supreme
Court:
WASHINGTON, Feb. IL, 1s4I,
Tho case broapht ND from the State OF Mis-
s;ssinni. involving the validity Of all the con-
tracts made for the purchase OF slaves, carried
into that State since the adoption of the Con-
stitution in 1892, is now under discussion IN
Sunreme Court. Mr. Jones of this city, fur
nished his argument this morning. wheh the
Hon. Henry Clay commenced his remarks
and ENGAGED the attention of the Court, at
large and intelligent assembly Of persons, who
had been drawn into the court room, unaer
the expectation of hearing hun. lie spoke ior
three hours, upon the points OF law involved,
and in truth demonstrated the correctness OF
tho nrinciples he advanced. He set out, after
an exordium on the immense importance OF
tho case-the millions involved with the
nr;ncinles that the clause of the Constitution
IF the State of Mississippi, declaring "that the
Introduction of slaves as merchandise INTO
that State. shall be prohibited after May, lS-
33'' was exclusively a mandate upon the
state Legislature, to enact laws making 1t
ireoal to introduce them-havlng no oblIgaio-
nv operation upon the people of the State or
| others. until the Legislature had discharged
| its dutv under this provision of the Constltu-
tion. by declaring by statute the introduction
LEGAL. gs it intended should be done. II this
nrincinle was estaalissed in the mind ofCourt,
as I have very little doubt, without gong any
farther into an investigation OF the other
noirts he made, the decision of the Corr
will he reversed, the Legislature not having
discharged its duty, and the contracts made
for the purchase of slaves since that period
will be made vale aad good. How other
wise should they BET
They have the slaves of the people OF Vir
rinia, MARYLAND Kentucky, and still hold then
as nropertv, deriving all the benefits o
their labor and yet endeayoring to avail them
selves of a provision III their constitution
which they themselves had dlsregarded, b.
their own acts and the acts of their legislatur
and avoid the payment of their just debts
IJpon the sublect,:Mr Clay evinced the noble
2 ness of his soul--the high and manly tone {
honor, Justice and infidelity, he portrayed an
| said should characterize States as well as IN
. dividuals, to every unbiased mind, carried dee
conviction, that he stands preeminent, as a
American patriot in thought, word and dee
e WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 1S41.
t When | entered the Supreme Court ROOF
l. this morning, the Hon. Daniel Webster VIZ
Y speaking. He had just began his remarks, al
l. alter showing TO what extent respect IS d.
V by this Court, to the decisions of the Sta
IS Courts, made in controversies, between Il
1t citizens of another and their own State, al
r what was the object of the provisions of Il
n. Constitution allowing such suits to be broug
rs IN the FEDERAL Courts, he divided his argume
into the two federal heads: Ist. what is L
r. true meaning of the provision of the Constit
ton of Mississippi, prohibiting the mtroducu
- of slaves into that State as merchandise all
IT. Nav, 1888; ID. how far this provision is &C
,y sistent with the Federal Constitution giv
n, to Congress the "power to regulate CONNER
n among the several states"
Upon the first branch of his argumen
- possible, he placed the correctness of the vi
nd taken by Mr.. Clay, in a still cleater and mt
err, distinct light. On the second, he forever
If TO rest, 80 far as the aid of this Court eXten
the pretenuUIIs Of the NUOHuonlsts, that
Government OF the United Strtes has any pc
dh or to interfere with our rights IN tins kind
mt property. Upon this subject, he would
he DOUBT, have moved the fears of his nei.
no Dor Richie, had he been present--at any r
have satisfied him, that in Mr.. Webs
. there is nothing TO be dreaded from
ICE fricdly regarde he may entertain for th
its misguided enthusiasts. He proved that
have a property IN these slaves gran
and secured to us by the Constitution of
!, United States, and that this right of proper
was eveh so far recognised as to be c0npul
er RI upon the non slave States, TO deliver
ZEE our slaves, escaping to within their iurisdict
eff that under the clause of the constitution,
70 regulate commerce among the several Stat
he argued, that all matters of purchase a
sale of of property between the several Sta
the states can make no regulation whatever
their individual capacity-anI the necessa
inference is, that the Constitution of Mississ
et, pi, prohibiting the Introduction of an artiC
ore recognised as property, is consistent with
mt, provisions of the Federal Constitution.
en- Suppose Mr. Clay remarked in his spec
m all the slave states were to pass such a Ia
lch and all the slaves now existing, and hereafi
the born, were thereby compelled to remain
I'VE their respective States-it would be product
irs. in effect, the very thing contended and aim
ri at BY the Abolitionsts. The power to res
If late commerce being a conservative princiT
ISL and not destructive, must extend to all kiI
,be, ofpropertv, or we never shall be able to DIR;
er the line where it must stop. This doctrine
md prohibition contended for by the counsel
re- the other side, MIR. Webster said, carried
my back to the State of non intercourse. &
ing State retaliation which it was the express
wi ject of the constitution to prevent, by civ
sly the power over commerce to the Federal G.
as eminent, thereby producing harmony
the symmetry In all our relations.