The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-01

The Law abolishing the Slave Trade In
the District OF Columbia.

Abolitonists and Free-soiIers upon Southern
rights. We made the promise under the impress
sion that the resolutions of Southern legislatures
and the spirited threats of Southern congressman
really meant something. We are now better in
formed, and therefore we will not waste our time
IN suggesting remedies.
Since were last before the public, there has
been another turn of the abolition screw in Con-
gress, which we think deserves special notice.
We allude to the law abolishing the slave trade in
the District of Columbia We are no advocate Of
slave-markets but we are not 30 much blinded by
our prejudces against them, to justify an
patton on the part of Congress- in order to remove
them out OF Washington city. In passing that
law, we believe that Congress clearly transcribed
It's legitimate powers. 1t declares that the slave,
brought into the District of Columbia for sale,
shall be set free In plain terms, it makes it a
crime IN the owner ola slave TO carry him into the
District for the purpose of selling him; and the
punishment affixed TO the crime, is not the usual
one OF fine, or Imprisonment, or both, but the
emancipation efuie Stare! If such punishment was
ever heard of before the passage of this law, we
have yet to learn when and where. Now the
Constitution of the United States declares that
excessive bail shall not be required nor excess
sve fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punish
ments inflicted" Here we have punishment
which If not inrsnted by Congress, is certainly
very "unusual," and therefore directly opposed
to the plain letter of the Constitution But we
shall be told that the last member of this clause of
the Constitution, refers only TO corporea punish
ments, and that they must be both cruel and UNI
usual. TO fall within the nterdct in question -
This construction is most PROFESSIONALLY wrong
IN part. That grave and wise men. such as framed
the Constitution, and who, as the instrument
itself show, throughout, were exceedingly fearful
OF the Federal Government, should have designed
to allow cruel punshmen,s il not unusual, or un-
usual punishments IL not cruel, is wholly incredi-
bic. or the two designs, the Vast is most improb-
able for il there is anything certain it is that the
trainers Of the Constitution never intended to
elothe Congress with the power of inrenii,g new
punishments. II would be waste of time to prove
this. Congress then is forbidden 10 nnct unusual
punishmen,s, on the person, at least, ms all must
admit. With this hint before them, could any one
have ever supposed tina, Congress would venture
to inven, new punshments in the way Of fines
proved, that the passage in question refers alone
to corporea punishments. twill be said that the
clause above quoted is literal transcript of pas
sage in the English bill of rights OF 1858, and that
1t refers exclusively TO those cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted by James the second and
his Infamous hirelings. This might be trie and
yet it would reach beyond the torturing boots and
thumb ,creics; for James was ms ingenious in n-
venting punshmen,s in the way &C fines, forfeit
ures and confscations, as his agents ere cruel in
innicting corporeal punshments. But the clause
i'll the bill ofrghts was probably intended to reach
all the lawless exactions which had been made of
British subjects during the reign Of James i =. and
of the three monarchs who Immediately preceded
him. The latest and most critical historian of those
times informs that the bill Of rights no
thing more than recapitulation Of what was the
law in England before 1t was drawn up; and Black
stone, after enumerating all the charters which
form the British constitution. says the fruits OF
them may be ranged under three heads personal
liberty, private property and personal security
With the Federal Constitution to back them, J.
seems that they cannot secure private property in
this country,
| But we have another constitutional objection to
the act Of Congress in question. The penalty
which it prescrbes partakes OF the nature Of fine
and forfeiture. As fine, it is necessarily sex
cessve" in its mildest application; and in its Sc.
verest is positively outrageous. An infant negro
child is worth one hundred dollars. Who would
infict fine of one hundred dollars for Offering to
sell one hundred dollars worth of property--we
say property, for by the Constitution slaves are
property--Congress is bound to regard them az
such; and the highest court Of judicature in the
country has decided them to be such. But sup
pose the negro carried to Washington for sale be
worth 1900 dollars; the fine mounts up TO this
sum. Is not this fine, or the half oft, cruelty
disproportionate to the offence If negroes to the
value often or twenty times this amount be car
ried there, for the same purpose, the offender is
mulct in the Of fifteen or thirty thousand dol
lars This is to be the vista ton upon the South
ern slave owner, rather than that the delicate
nerves Of the magnates Of Washington should be
offended by traffic in this kind of property! No
discretion is left to the Judge in the matter-no
clue is given to him for ascertaning whether the
fine in given case be excessive or not--that ID,
whether the law be unconstitutional or no,---and
consequently the greatest safeguard that we have
against Legislative usurpaion, is shut out from the
slave owner. We have said that the penalty for
the heinous crime of carrying property to the Dis.
trict Of Columbia, for sale, is both fine and for
fixture. This we suppose will hardly be disputed.
What says the Constitution upon the subject of
t55eiures2 The Congress shall have power to
declare the pun ishment of treason, but no attain
der of treason shall work corruption Of blood or
forfeiture except during the life Of the person at
tainted, For treason then, the highest crime
known to the law, this penalty could not be in
ficted. Now we suppose that punshments for
hidden for the greatest of all crimes are forbidden
for the least OF all crimes. Little did our fathers
cream that while the Constitution acknowledged
slaves,as property, Congress would ever dare to