Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-04-15

isuons which Congress had made. general svsten
vas adopted, which, executed in every instance,
~ou'o nave carried ships end vessels into all the
ports OF the several States their local
laws TO the contrary Notwithstanding. An express
equation was, therefore, introduced requiring the
Souec'ors OF the customs to conform the execution
W 'her othctil duties, under the navigation and
venue laws with the quarantine laws OF the respee-
1--WE states. Without such provision, the local
heaiIh laws must have given way TO the supremacy
OF the navigation and revenue laws OF the Union.
These principles all clearly 6educble from
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case OF
Gibbons VS.. Ogden. But both the gentleman from
Aecomac and myself refer to this case as authority
Tor our respective positions: statement OF that case
must determine which OF us understands 1t rightly
The Legislature OF New York granted to Living
sion and Fulton the ereiusipe navigation of all the
waters within the jurisdiction Of that State with
ooats moved by fire steam. The right to navi-
gate the waters between Elzabcthtown, and other
places in New Jersey and tho City of New York,
was assigned TO Ogden. Gibbons was in possession
OF ten steamboats, which he employed in running
between New York and Elizabethtown in violation
OF the exclusive privilege conferred on Ogden, and
an injunction was obtained TO restrain him from the
use oil The boats in navg aIng the within the
territory OF New York. The motive alleged for
enac'ng these laws was to renunerate the grantees
'or oeneht conferred by them on the public. The
SUBJECT oil this Legislation was, therefore, entirely
within the scope Of State authority the object lesi-
uma'e and commendable; the question was, whe-
ther the means used were admissible The acts pro-
noted vessels licensed, according TO the laws of the
United States, for carrying on the coasting trade,
rom navigating the waters of that State except un-
ger certain prescribed conditions: The Court held
Tue acts TO oe repugnant TO that clause of the Con-
stiution OF the United States which authorizes Con-
sress TO regulate commerce. What is there in the
Two cases To distinguish them from each oiherl Does
not The decision IN Gibbons Ogden settle the
question OF the constitutionality OF this bi' Must
II not be held to involve forbidden means, and be
repngnant TO the same clause of the Constitution
founded upon an idea which struck me perfectly
novel. He sad that whilst he admitted that a state
could not pass a law IN conflict with a law of Con-
gress enacted in pursuance ofan authority expressly
delegated he yet maintained there such dis
ability IN respect of law enacted in pursuance of
an implied authority. Surely such argument
canno' need serious reiutntion. The laws OF Con-
sresS made IN pursuance OF the Constitution the
supreme iHics Of The land, and whether they are
made under an express or implied power, they are,
IN either case made in pursuance OF the Constitu-
uon, and must have supreme authority.
WIN regard TO the degree OF repugnancy, It was
insisted that the repugnancy must bc Girsct and tr
reeonetieabie. Certainly If the acts be repugnant at
all, they must be with all the qualifications.
MIR Scott said, he had still further objection to
ailege against the bill. Ii would Justify New York
IN the passage of the obnoxious law concerning the
recovery OF fugitive slaves. In Pursuance of II
clearly granted power over that subject, Congress
had, so early as 1898, passed law directing in |
what way master should proceed in any of the
SNSASS ~ nls Save; unu so IN ike
manner, IN pursuance OF the acknowledged power
over commerce, Congress has passed laws reguiat-
ing the commercial inlec course betwe,n the citizens
oil the different States. But New York, IN manifest
derogaton from the law of Congress of.l795, had
recently directed other proceedings of a character
the most obnoxious TO This law certainly
repugnant TO the constitution, and would be so held
by the Courts;-it regarded here. But we
are called upon TO pass law in equal derogation
from another law Of Congress, prescribing other
regulations for the commercial intercourse of the
citizens Of other States with our own. Surely the
principle which will sustain one of these laws will
sustain the other. II this bill can be justified by
the principles OF the Constitution, we must cease
our clamor against the law Of New York. Were
we prepared for this MIR Scott replied at some
length TO the remarks Of the gentleman from Acco.
mac on the subject OF Abolition, and amented that
exciting subject had been fos,ed into this debate.
Ii was calculated, f not intended, excite passion
and prevent fair determination Of the interesting
| and important question under consideration. He
expressed the opinion that the power of the Moth
ern fanatics was greatly overaed, and said that he
had too much confidence in the good sense and pa
| trUtism of our fellow citizens of the non slave.
holding States, 10 apprehend any injury to South
ern rights from the miSchevoUs and misg uided eff
forts Of those individuals.
He concluded, by recommending TO the Legisla-
ture, to devote their energy towards some liberal
and enlarged system Of State legislation, for the
purpose OF developing the vast resources of the
ICommonweath-ior fostering and encouraging do
nestle manufactures and commerce By doing,
| they would strengthen institutions and enrich
our citizens, and confer lasting benefit upon the
| community.