The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-09-06
CONGRESSIONAL.
SPEECH OF RIH. HUN TER,
nH VInEvNta

OF VIRGINIA,
n ~, addition of The saUe trade an the District of Co
I,,nbla delivered IN the Senate, Tuesday, September
g. 1880
The Senate having under consideration the bill TO sup
press the slave trade in the District of Columbia, Mr.
FoorE moved 10 strike out all after the enacng clause
and insert substitute which was published in the Union
on Wednesday morning.
IN Mr. HUNTER Mr. President regret yery much
that this bill has been called up at this time had hoped
thai al this period OF the session and in the present state
Of public opinion IL relation to this agtang subject we
might escape this BILL and the discussion and excitement
10 which il must lead. But, sir, the senator from Ken
lucky has felt TO be his duty call up the bill for
alteration; and feel myself bound BY sense OF obi
CATION equally strong 10 oppose il, and give the reasons
knew il not designed. but fear il is but the be.
ginning OF series o measures which must end in the
abolition OF slavery in the District of Columbia 1t is
said that il is the first step that costs; and if this bill
should pass without opposition, fear that the rest will
but easily follow. II connects itself with OF the
delicate, dangerous and 70 my State vital questions
oal that have grown out OF this anti slavery agitation
mean what is called the abolition Of the domestic slave
trade
between the States and the District Of Columbia This,
sir the real nature and tendency Of this bill 1t has
been decided by the Supreme Court OF the United States
and has been maintained in every southern State with
which am acquainted, that the power 10 prohibit this
domestic slave trade between the States Of this Union is
not in Congress, and that i wond be unconstitutional 10
attempt il. think can show that the similar
OF reasoning, which would establish the PROPOSE
don hatN would be unconstitutional 10 prohibit the slave
trade between the States would also establish the fact
that it would be unconstitutional to prohibit it between
The States and the District Of Columbia. think that
even if should fail in that, will be able to show that
hwoud be nexpedient under the circumstances to at
tempt it.
In the case of Groves and Slaughter, which came up
from the State of Mississippi, the memorable decision
given that Congress had constitutional power to
prohibit the slave trade between the States In that
was argued with great ability by Mr. Clay, (who was
counsel for the defendant error in the first place. that
under the power to regulate commerce. Congress had
right prohibit any branch OF it that the power TO regu
late commerce was power given for the purpose of
making uniform and equal regulations power given for
preserving commerce, and not 10 destroy IT, Nor did he
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 Stale OF Mississippi. unconsttu
tonal because, he said, had been decided in the
Of Gbbon Ogden, that the power to regulate commerce
vested exclusively in consess and not in the State
any article OF merchandise Take these two propositions
together, laid down BY the senator from Kentucky then
slave trade between the States because the power TO
ue did not extend to its desructon and that
the State itself could not prohibit il, account of the
fact that the power to which have alluded was in Con-
gess and exclusively in Congress, and what followed
ha, Congress and the State OF Mississippi united could
prevent the sale OF slaves from other States within
the State Of Mississippi Ii that argument be true ask
you how Congress, supposng il to unite the powers
the general and Stale governments, prohibit the sale IN
the District Of Columbia'
But sir, be was not the only eminen, counsel in that
case. Mr. Webster, the former senator from Massachu
maintained upon that occasion that the provision in
the constitution OF Mississippi was contrary 10 the cons
tuition OF the United States. He said that the constitution
the United States had recognised property in slaves
that the Safe of Mississippi tolerated slavery and in
doing acknowledged that there might be merchandise in
slaves. He said while il tolerated slavery, il was
forever concluded from prohibiting the sale OF slaves from
other States, by the decision in the case OF Gibbon Us
Ogden-a decision which, all know, ruled that this
power exclusively vested in Congress, and that the
Saies could exercise power upon that subject Hav
ng recognised the fact that there could be property IN
slaves and iolerating slavery, il had more right to
prevent the sale OF slaves there than had the night TO
Fevent the sale OF cotton fabrics.
Judge Baldwin, in that case, delivered dissenting
pnon, it is true; but he affirmed this ground taken BY
Nr Webster. | maintain that If the argument OF the
snaor from kentucky in that right this bill IS
unconstitutional and il the argument OF Mr. Webster IS
gh long Congress permits slavery in this District
Me bill unconstitutional and OF course, II Judge Bald
WIN IS right, the bill is unconstitutional
may be said that the arguments both OF MI Clay and
Dir Webster, in that case, were ovcrruied by the cour'
isef II they were overrued, i think am prepared TO
show that they were overruled upon no ground winch
would allow 10 Congress right 10 prohibit the slave
fade IN the District OF Columbia !, Is true that the ma
y Of that did decide that this provision IN The
constitution Of Mississippi not contrary to the consu
luton Of the United States but, sir the only Judge oi
nose who decided, who gave reason tor his opnlon
was Judge Mclean and to these shall presently
refer.
Upon what ground was i that they decided a State
night thus interfere with this provision in relation TO the
regulation OF commece II was upon the ground so often
maintained BY the Supreme Court, that the States, under
ihet power the nierna! organization oi the society
and the power over matters OF police and the subject oil
inspection laws, Sc, which are separate ahd oisnnc
powers might pass enactmenis which, in carrying ou
these rights did interfere extent, with tue power
lofeguse commerce Judge Mclean went so lar as .
say that in matter touching the internal organization o.
Slate there power higher than tue consuiuuoi
nseI-the power of se-preseryaiion. And VINO car
doubti II is the right oi the tabuia t naDrdg,o-ths
hght Of seZing upon the last plank in shpwreck Sell
reservation the first law OF nature, and OF every hu
nan society What is the ground upon which the cour
.eeded that the States may laws which would con
scl with the regulation OF cOmmece and yet be vaid
Not upon the ground that there concurrent powers
N The States and general government 10 regulate com
merce-because II there concurrent powers, BY The
erms OF 'he constitution the laws of the United States
must 1e ufeme-but because these conflicting pow
er Inc Congress Of the United States had the right u
pass laws regulating commerce That was designed fo
The good OF the whole-designed as the history of b,
provision shows, TO prevent State from leglslsnl
sehshly upon that subject, TO the dsad Vantage of h
oher States But, on the other hand the States had h,
power TO regulate Their internal organization They had thu
power pass laws 10 preserve the lives OF their citizens
they had the power 10 pass laws to regulate internal pro
0uehon. 80 far TO pass these inspection regulations AM
When these bad come into conflict when both operated
lhe same subject what the rue That each must 81
use hs own power not to interfere with the equal rgh
another, and that power must be Used and compro
lsed as TO do the most good and the least injury
ma ~ conflict OF this il would be more for The ad
vantage Of society that the States should pass such regu
uons as were necessary 10 preserve the health OF th
pTle, ana topovide for the protection OF production
iuei inspection laws than 10 deny them that power 10
W purpose oi enabling Congress to exercise the who'll
power 10 regulate commerce. Ii ~ true that in In
OF these powers the two jurisdictions touch upor