Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1845-02-14
From the Charleston Mercury.
STkTE CONTROVERSIES.


enact certain law was in question, Mr.
Webster, according to the reporter Of thu
Baltimore American, ''took occasion Il
make some allusion 10 the laws Of the
States affecting the rights and privilege.
of persons, and expressed the hope that the
Court would give its view of the question
Mr.. Webster desired an opinion no doub,
upon such-laws as those Of South Carroll
ma affecting the privileges Of persons oil
another Stale visiting that State. He
spoke of The excitement which prevailed
upon important subjects in The country,
and thoughtit ,ime-high time-lhal The
Court should give an opinion upon ques.
lions of somuch Interest,"
We are mot informed as to the legal
point 10 controversy, and of course cannot
know TO what extent the Court should go ;
bu, it was an appeal by a citizen of Mas
sachuse:ts from a decision of her own
Courts, and would seem therefore to afford
but slim ground for approaching the prin-
clples involved in the controversy between
Massachusetts and South Carolina. The
opinion Of the Supreme Courl would of
course have much interest. but it would
have no practical weight. 1t cannot con-
troll the movements of The Abolition party,
and consequently can give no protection
or femedyio The Southern States. For
thai reason alone, if there were no other,
it cannot and will not be suffered to check
the defensive legislation Of the States. But
the Supreme, Court cannot touch the real
question involved in the law Of S. Caro-
lima, except by deciding that Free Blacks
are citizens, of the United States, in the
same sense as Whites. Among The news
paper discussions of the subject, since MIR.
Hoar's expedition to these parts and his
greater expedition. out of them, we have
found a great abundance Of every thing
but law and reason. The following in a
late numbersof the New Haven Register,
is fortunate exception.
SoUTH CAROLINA AND MASSACHUSETTS.
The wings are pouring out oceans of
wrath, because South Carolina will not
permit Massachusetts 10 interfere with The
matters of internal policy which the for
mer sees itto adopt, 10 protect her eili,
TG=orfiurvUrzs; South Carolina prohibits
the free blacks Of Massachusetts, or any
othe, Stale Of the Union, from coming in
10 The port Of Charleston, OIL The ground
,ha, there is good reason 10 believe, as she
says, that these persons, if permitted 20
mingle among the slaves Of that country,
would incite them 10 another 81. Domingo
insurreclion. To all this, Massachusetts
says, no matter whether these apprehen
sions are well or ill.founded. The Conslitu-
lion of the United States has given to the
citizens of the several States, all the priv
ileses of citizens in any other State wher.
ever they may choose TO go; and if black
citizen of Massachusetts choose TO 60 to
South Carolina, there is no power in the
Stale to prevent him. The Constitution
of the United States declares chat,
1.-The citizens of each Stale shall be en-
titled to all The privileges aud immunilies,
of cilzeus il the several States"
True. says South Carolina, but free
blacks are nol citizens within the meaning
of this claus. of lhe Constitution aud on
this, The controversy between The two prin
cipally hings. Now before we hastily
condemn Smth Carolina, for saying that
negroes are ,ol "citizens" within the mean-
ing Of The Constitution, it may be well TO
see what OR own judges have said on
this very suject, long before it was pushed
into politics. Judge Degset Of this city,
was, as is veil known, for several years
the Chief Jrslice Of the Supreme Court of
Connection, and in giving his opinion,
which will le found in the 10Th volume of
the Connecticut Reports, at page 349, he
uses lbe folbwing languase:-
ITO my nind, it would be perversion
of terms, ah the well known rules of con-
struclou, &c say that slaves. free blacks,
or Indians, we're citizens within The mean
ing of the tcm as used in the Constitution.
God forbid hat I should add 10 The degra-
dalion of tbs race of men :.but | am bound
by my duty TO say they are mol citizens"
rnNo Carknian has euer gone further
than this. ~
Again, ts naturalization laws of Con-
gress, passd in obedience to the require
mens of ue Constitution, have always
carried thrugh the same distinction. They
provide ihi, any alien being a free 1ohite
person, ma be admitted to become cti
zen of the United States, or any Of them,"
excluding lacks from citizenship by nat
uralizaliot Whether this was right or
wrong in or foreiaihers who recognized
these disriclions, is not How the :aueslioo.
They pepaps felt as Chancellor Kent
who was many years a, the head of,he
Courts in he Stale of New York, express
ses himsel in. the second volume Of his
commentaries, at page 25S:
THE Aican race, (says The Chancel-
Ior,) are senlialIy a degraged casle, of
inferior rak. and condition in society,"
Marriagebetween them and whites are
forbidden in some of The States where
slavery des not exist, and they are pro-
hibiedin II the slave holding States; and
when not absolutely contrary to law. they
are revoltig, and regarded as an offence
against puic decorum."
But evilif the free blacks were CHI.
zeus of ae United States, within the
meaning the Constitution, and had the