The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-09-14
from th. N. Y. journal Of Commerce, Sept. 10.

Fro N.
MKssss EprroRs Can you inform what difference
there s so constutionay Is concerned, between
resisting the North the capture OF ngiives from slavery
and the i'm the South OF free citizens om
northern States, against whom no crime can be charged
except that they coored Or IN other words, whether
would not be legal tor the MOI them States laws
against the capture OF slaves is Tor TIE southern
states pass laws authorizing the imprisonment of free
men
since We did not answer them then, because we did
not care 10 divert the attention OF the North from their
own misconduct, which was apparently beginning 10
work convection and repentance.
IL would, however have been sufficient answer Tor
the occasion had we said that two wrongs do not make
right and that before at the North can consistently re-
poach the South for violation OF the constitution, we
must first recy our own conduct-hfs gel the beam oul
OF own eye, that may clearly 10 pull the
mote out Of our brothers eye.
Again: there is small peti0 prtncpu t6eggng OF the
question: in the form OF the interrogaiory, Is u clear
that coored persons are tutsenS IN The sense OF Tue
constitution, when says The citizens OF each Stale
Zens the several States p What constitutes cilzen
The privilege OF voting AT the date OF the conslltu-
non considerable portion of the white population
of New England did not enjoy this privilege IN viT.
gina still less portion Very few OF The coored people
in any OF the States enjoy that privilege now None OF
them, far we know, perform military duty very
few OF them pay taxes. If the term "czen," as used
in the abov provision OF the constitution is 10 De taken
this restricted doubt il II has ever been Vio-
lated in South Carolina for douhtwheher any colored
in this mas ever applied Tor admission Win
in her limits.
ii, however the term is used IN general sense as
equivalent to person nhabltan then we suppose Inc
meaning of the clause is that the people OF any parlc-
ular State treated within the limits OF that Stale so
shall the people of other States coming within lis limits
be treated Ii South Carolina forbds her own color
ed people, when out OF the State, IRON returning,
she -coored people from other States IN me
same way when she prohibits them from entering ms
may harsh regulation 10 some OF us at the North
but every State must be allowed 10 judge what It's own
safely or interest demands. Each State-and we might
almost say each cy-establishes its own police regula
To Ia
cies South Carolina does this, in common with other
States One of these police regulations, deemed ind's
pensabe her internal tranquility Is the exclusion OF
lreec oored people. Without such a regulation. she
be invaded by any number OF colored ncendarles
from the North, claiming the character OF citizens
from States, until they had got train laid and the
matches lighted for terrible explosion II Stale has a
right 10 decree the exclusion OF coored people IRON lis
limits il has right to decree and enforce The necessary
penalties. An Imprisonment OF lew days 10 not very
heavy penalty say Imprisonment until the party
wll consent 10 depart from the State G, cease TO
creed the exclusion oil Quakers under penalty oil bansh-
ment and IN case oil return once or twice the penalty was
death In this in the other, the people lhough
less 'nde pendent than those OF sovereign Sate asked
no aid in determining what regulations they should adopt
for their we'll being. We 40 not believe that the
trainers the constitution intended to annui this funda.
mental law-ths q law OF Nalure," as Governor Sew
ard would ay-lhis law OF set-preservauon.
IT, however in the case OF South Carolina the co'sii-
tulou is nirnged The essence OF The Infringement con-
the eIctUs.on for II men are not permitted even
Stale, they OF course excluded IRON all It's
privileges and mmunltIes
Now be il known anu remembered that South Caro-.
lima the only State which has excluded Tree coored
from lis mls-t prohibited under severe pen
anes, any and all such persons, residing IN the
State, iron entering 1t for that purpose Nor DO all such
States lie south OF Mason and DXons line. On the con-
lrary within few months past The Tree State OF Indiana,
BY overwhelming maJorty-a majority greater Than
almost before gwen any questlon--has in.
corporated into her constitution precisely this provision
excluding coored people from her limits No matter
how pure they are IRON cflme-no matter how vruous
how goodf they seek 10 enter the State back they
go, be subject disabilities and their abelters 10
penaes, which will render continued residence lmpos
sble Now, Indiana Las no such plea OF domestic safety
urge, South Carolina and other savehodinS SIaes
have IT, therefore, in the of South Carolina the
exclusion is unconstitutional IT is al least equally 80 ~
the OF lnaana II wrong and wicked IN The case oil
South Carolina, douby III the case OF Indiana
The abouonists have made great ado because they
could not get the question OF consutonaty before the
Supreme Court OF he United States. They say that Mas
sachuselts sent the Hon. Samuel Hoar 10 Charles
ton with that OBJECT In view, but that he wasdrlyen oui
of the State aud could not accomplish the object.
Now gentlemen we beg TO direct your attention to Tree
State where Samuel Hoar, any other white man. can
90 and remain 18th perfect safety and where the neces-
sary arrangements be made 10 procure decision on
the question from the highest tribunal IN The naton-Ihe
tribunal established by the constitution itself 10 interpret
lis and meaning III you VIII not lake ms small
trouble you hardly expect that the public will give
you credit for much sincerity when you complain that
South Carolina will not let the question be tested by the
Supreme Court IL is Tor you TO say whether shall
be tested or not The aairis quite within your reach
snail IL De uohet we guess hot VII Tue oohudiy, we
expect you will fall back your old plea set up for
want OF a better, when the South, through their deega-
ons in Congress- offered 10 submit the consiltutionay
OF the WilmOt proviso TO the tribunal, and you
shrugged your shoulders and said IN effect that the So
preme Count could not be trusted that hye Judges out OF
nine resided south OF Mason and Dxobs ne and that
therefore, the court could moi be trusted que ston like
hisl Oar opinion then was, and now u.s. that you were
and much afraid OF the integrity oil that court
than OF It's aily-o lis fidelity to the constitution than
its nfdeliiy But shall see.
From the Boston Daily Times.