Semi-weekly Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1851-1852, 1851-12-19


by citizens of the State, would receive the
same treatment as if he were native subject
of Great Britain, and came in British vessel.
If the prevention of free persons of color
from entering into this State operates in any
degree as an impediment to the commerce OF
British vessels with our ports, it can only be
by very slightly diminishing the number OF
competitors for empoymentin in the service of
such vessels, and thereby proportionally en-
hancing the cost of the service. But as the
same prohibition extends to all other vessels,
its effect must be the srme upon our whole
import and export trade. A thorough analysis
would therefore probaly show that the whole,
or nearly the whole, of the burden, whatever
it may be, is borne by ourselves. But at all
events it cannot be questioned that we bear at
least an equal share of it.
The law which we are invited to surrender,
was originally introduced soon after the de-
lection and suppression of an insurrectionary
movement, devised and set on foot by free
negro who had been for some time iii the habit
of leaving the State, and returning to it at
pleasure, and whose fruquent excursions were
proved to be connected with his bloody de-
signs. The law has existed for nearly thirty
years, and during that time no similar con-
spiracy has occurred. How far it has contri-
buted to this result we cannot pretend to esti-
mate. But we know that the experience OF
our predecessors led them to adopt it, and
there is certainly nothing in our experience to
induce US to abandon it.
1t was originally enacted and has been con
tinued solely and exclusively with view to
our own internal order and security, and with
out the remotcst intention to trcspass upon the
rights or obslruct the commerce of any other
people Ifit has served in any degree to pre-
serve the peace and welfare of the State, it is
certainly of great Importance to US, and ought
not to be abandoned on account of any slight
inconvenience it may occasion to others. In
deed, there is too much reason to believe that
the murmurs and complaints against it which
come to us from abroad are prompted much
less by Inconvenience actually felt than by
spirit Of unfrendliness to our institutions. The
committee are vary far from intending to i'm
pute any such spirit to her Majesty's Govern
ment, or the gentleman who represents them
here. They are undoubtedly actuated by no
other motive than an honorable zeal to watch
over and protect the righ hts of British subjects
wherever they are supposed to be infringed.
But it may be sately assumed that such overJ
lures as the one now under consideration are
not made by the Executive Government unless
at the instance Of other persons brought to
bear upon them through the usual channels.
And when one member Of the popular branch
of the British Legislature is seen actively en-.
gagged in the work of exciting the people OF
some of the States, with which we are polit
cally connected, against our property and so
cial order, it cannot be deemed extravagant
or offensive to surInisc that there may be ind.
viduals in that body quite capable of cndeav
oring to make the Government of their own
country subservieut to tho Same l'"etilc designs.
Nor is it ut ;ll improbable that s:lch movements
should Le ns,igated and encouraged by our
enemies on tbs side Ct tIc -itantic
1t is now for he first time that the opinion
of Mr.. Writ, vile attorney General Of the u
nitcd States, cited by her Maic'ty's Consul,
has been brought to the view of the LegiSa
ture. In 1924 it was with the correspondence
which led to it communicated by MIR. John q.
Adams, then Secretary of State, to the Gov
ernor of this State, who laid it before the Leg
islature; and they then, after mature considera-
ton, expressly dissented from and rcpudiated
it. That opinion proceeds entrel y upon the
assumption that by dclegating to the Federal
Government the power to regulate commerce
and to make treaties, the several States divcsted
themselves of the right to exclude from their
respective territories such persons as might be
deemed dangerous to the security and wei
fare of their people. 1t appears to the Com
mittee that such an Interpretation of the Fed
eral compact is not demanded by its purposes
nor justified by its terms, and is utterly ncon
sisteut with the safety and even the distinct
sovereignty Of the State.
This view of the Constitution is strongly
supported by the opinion of the Chief justice
of the United States judcially in cause which
received the fullest consideration, and expires.
sed in til, following unequivocal language: 81
think it very clear, both upon prncip pie and
the authority of adiudged cases, that the sew
cral States have riyht to remove from among
their people, and to prevent from entering the
State, any person or class or description Of
persons, whom it may deem dangerous or in
furious to the interests and welfare of its ci.
zens; and that the State has tie exclusive
right to determine in its sound discretion wheth-
er the danger does or does not exist. free from
the control of the General Government" "No
treaty or act OF Congress has been produced,
which gives, or attempts to give, to all aliens
the right to land in 4 State 81 cannot believe