Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-09-07
DEBATE IN THE SENATE.
SLAVE TRADE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

#t 4. s Y +
TursDAY, SErrEaBER 8, $780,
The Senate having under consideration the bill to suppress
the slave trade in the District of Columbia Mr. FooTE
to strike out all after the enacng clause, and insert sub
siiute which published in the negencer Wednes
day morning: sne 5ta
Mr. HUNTER Mr.. President, regret very much tina
this bill has been called up this time had hoped that
this period Of the session. and in the present state OF public
opinion IN relation TO this agitang subject we might escape
this bill, and the discussion and excitement TO winch
must lead But sir the Senator from Kentucky has felt
be his duty call up the bill for considerations and Tee
myself bound Of obligation equally strong 70 oppose
H. and give the which suggest themselves 10 me
against It's passage. knew not SO designed nut
fear is but the beginning Of series of measures which must
end in the abolition Of slavery in the District OF Columbia
II Is said that il Is the first step that costs and nis o
should pass without opposition, fear that the rest viii pu'
TOO easily follow II itself with OF the most deli
cate dangerous and my State vital questions OF all that
have grown Of this anti slavery agitation mean wnst Is
called the abolition Of the domestic slave trade.
This bill which proposes abolish the slave trade De-
tween the States and the District Of Columbia This, sir, Is
the real nature tendency Of this BILL II has been decided
by the Supreme Cou Of the United States and mas oeen
maintained in every Southern State with which am ac
Cuanted that the power prohibit this domestic slave ade
between the States this Union is in Congress- and that
il would be Unconstitutional to attempt it, think can snow
thar the similar Of reasoning which would es
tabish the proposition that Il would De uncons'suons
prohibit the slave trade between the States would also estab
sh the fact that would be unconstitutional TO Ponon
between the States and the District Of Columbia tnnk
that even if should fail in that will be able to show tnt
il would be under the circumstances to attempt It.
In the case Of Groves and Slaughter which came up from
the State Of Mississippi the memorable decision was given nat
Congress had constitutional power to prohibit tne slave
trade between the States In that case was argued WIN
great ability by Mr. Clay ho counsel for the defendant
in error in the first place. that under the power TO regulate
commerce. Congress had right to prohibit any branch OF
that the power regulate was power given Tor
the purpose making uniform and equal regulations power
- Iocfrnu 4 Nor
did be stop there sir but laid down the further proposition
that the provision in the constitution OF Mississippi which
provided for the prohibition Of the sale Of slaves from other
States in the State Of Mississippi unconstitutional be-
cause he said had been decided in the of Gbbon u.s.
Ogden that the power regulate commerce was vested eI
clusyey in Congress- and not in the State and therefore
they had right proh this trade in any article OF mer
chandise Take these two propositions togeher ad do"n
by the Senator Kentucky then counsel IN the case tna
Congress could prohibit the slave trade between the States
because the power regulate did not extend TO It's
destruction and that the State itself could not prohibit IT. on
Of the fact that the to which have alluded
in Congress- and exclusively Congress- and what fol-
lowed, That Congress and the State Of Mississippi united
could prevent the sale Of slaves from other States within
the State Of Mississippi If that argument be true, ask you
how Congress- supposng II to unite the powers OF the
General and State Governments prohibit the sale in the Dis
:rict of Columbia
But sir he not the only eminent counsel in that case
Mr. Webster the former Senator from Massachusetts, main
tanned upon that occasion that the provision in the constitution
States He said that the constitution of the United States
had recognised property in slaves that the State Of Msss
spp tolerated slavery, and in doing acknowledged that
there might be merchandise in slaves He said while tole
rated slavery forever concluded from prohibiting the
sale Of slaves from other States by the decision in the case
of Gibbon Ogden decision which, all know, ruled
that this power exclusively vested in Congress- and that
the States could exercise upon that subject Having
recognised the fact that there could be properly slaves
and ,olerang slavery, had right to prevent the
sale Of slaves there than had the right prevent the
sale of cotton fabrics.
Judge Baldwin, in that case, delivered dissenting opin
on it is true; but he affirmed this ground taken by Mr.
Webster. maintain that if the argument OF the Senator
from Kentucky in that right, this bill is unconstu
ona and if the argument of Mr. Webster right, so long
Congress permits slavery this District the bill is unco-
situiona and of course Judge Baldwin right the bin
is unconstitutional. l
II may be said that the arguments both Of Mr. Clay and
Mr. Webster in that case overuled blythe Court itself
ii they overuied think am prepared to show that
they oveuled upon ground which would allow to
Congress right prohibit the slave trade in the District Of
Columbia II is that the majority Of that court did
decide that this provision in the constitution OF
contrary to the constitution OF the United States
but sir the only Judge of those who decided who gave
for his opinion, Judge McLsan and to these
sons shall presently refer. "t.s
Upon what ground it that they decided State might
thus interfere with this provision relation TO the regulation
of commerce 1t was upon the ground often main
tanned by the Supreme Court that the States under their
power the internal of their society," and the
power
laws &C., which separate and distinct powers, might
pass enactments which, in carrying out these rights did
terere extent with the power regulate
Ju ge Mclean went say that in matter touch
lug the internal organisation of State there power
higher than the constitution tsethe power Of self preseva
ton And who doubt II is the right of the ta6ua
nauagio-the night of sezing upon the last plank in
shpwreck. Sefpreservaon is the first law OF nature, and
Of every human society What the ground upon which the
court decided that the States may pass laws which would
f with the regulation of commerce, and yet be valid No
upon the ground that there powers the States
and General Government regulate because,
there powers by the terms Of the consitu
ton the laws Of the United States must be supeme bu
because these conflicting powers The Congress Of the
United States had the right to pass laws regulating commerce
That designed for the good of the whole; designed
the history of the provision shows prevent one State from
egisang seshly upon that subject the disadvantage
the other States But the other hand the States had the
power regulate their internal organization. They had the
power pass laws preserve the lives of their citizens
They had the power pass laws regulate internal pro-
ducion far pass these inspection regulations And
these had conflict, when both operated on
the subject, what the rule That each must SC
his power to interfere with the equal right OIL
another; and that power must be so used and COM
promised do the good and the least injury, and that
mi conflict Of this would be for the advantage Of
society that the States should pass such regulations as were
necessary preserve the health of the people, and to provide
Tor the protection of production, under inspection laws than
to deny them that power for the purpose of enabling Con-
gess TO exercise the whole OF lis regulate
IL Is true that in the exercise Of these powers the jusdic
tons touch the and trench upon each other
but the conflict must be adjusted uponthe principle of which
have spoken Each exercise its CONTROL but is
interfere with the equagt of the other That the only
way In which It can be explained because if concurren,
powers according the opinion of all LAWYERS the laws
OF The United States would be supreme They would be