Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-05-07
TO THE EDITORS.

The delicate reserve which you have generally exhi-
bted in regard TO subjects pending before judicial tri
bunal has often been the subject Of remark and common
daon The article in your tr-weeRy OF the 26tsl April
in reference TO the validity Of the laws Of South Carolina
authorizing the Imprisonment Of coored seamen
10 De rather Migrant departure from your accustomed
proprery hou not only take for granted that the law
is valid but undertake argue the question which
pending in the District Court Nor does your argument
to possess its usual clearness and strength There
appears to me great faacy in assuming that free
groes are citizens of the United States and entitled the
protection OF the second section of the fourth article of
the Constitution had supposed that it was now uni
versay admitted that free negroes were not citizens Of
the United States, and cannot be- That Question shall
pass by Tor the present and assume that they are not
II not citizens OF the United States they cannot be- in
proper sense citizens Of any State The United States
alone nave the right TO admit citizens; and whatever
privileges ana rights any State may vouchsae free
grces cannot make them citizens, and consequently
the constitution cannot affect the right of South Carolina
to deal with Tree coored persons coming into her territory
in such way as she may think necessary or expedent
But as it regards the citizens subjects Of foreign ma
ton the question is very different one Every indie
pendent nation may choose with whom it will have inter
course and if it thinks the admission Of the citizens or
subjects OF any nation into its territory dangerous to its
peace or safety, it may refuse trade with them and
may shut its ports against them The United States
might do this but South Carolina cannot She is net in
dependent in that If the Emperor of Morocco or
the King OF Madagascar should send ship the port
of Charleston it should be driven there by stress Of
weather. could the authorities have any greater right to
imprison the black captain mariners than they wod
have to imprison the white subjects of Queen Victo
ria in the like circumstances and especially if the
United States had treaty of amity and commerce
with those kingdoms And suppose the United States
should recognise the independence of Liberia and form
such treaty with her. without such treaty and of
her vessels, manned by her citizens should visit
Charleston would not the supeargo captain have the
right under the Constitution of the United States
all business there any white subject Queen
Victoria of the Emperor Nicholas Of Napoleon III
Whom the United States choose admit South Carolina
cannot exclude or rightfully modest. e.
It is never unpleasant to receive fair comments,
even if unfavorable, upon any views we may ex-
press and, if the matter be of sufficient interest,
we seldom refuse our readers the benefit of the ex-
cellent caution, audi alteram partens With this
view insert above the criticisms of correspond
ent upon some brief words of ours few days ago,
regarding case just then about to be decided in
the District Court at Charleston in reference to the
imprisonment of foreign colored seamen under a
statute of South Carolina.
We cannot, however, submit the remarks of
E." without excepting to his accusation of a de
parture from our accustomed propriety" by an ar
gument upon question at issue before the proper
tribunal. We did not propose then, nor do we now,
to discuss this question, though we have sufficient
materials at hand to enable us to do so. We SIM
ply expressed our opinion upon a point of inter-
national and constitutional law, upon which nearly
every journal in the Union has had occasion to
speak during the long time it has Reen controverted
or at least not decsively settled The facts in the
several cases which have occurred from an infringe
men of the State law, as in this last case have been
agreed upon. The principles involved are we'll
known; the legal authorities and judicial prece-
dents bearing upon the question have often been
citcd and certainly are familiar to all engaged in
the trial. and even to those who may have lent but
general attention to the controversy. We do not
perceive, therefore, that our remarks violated any
proprety.
We cannot see, either, that the suggestions Of
E." affect the force of what we said as his suppo-
sttioug would be no stronger than that lately
before the Federal Court at Charleston, and would
not, in our opinion, have the effect to divest any
State of the right of sefdefence and preservation
which was distinctly the ground upon which we
upheld the law of South Carolina, while we admit
ted its stringency and questionable expediency.
We may mention that our views in regard to the
legality of the enactment have been sustained by
the United States Court at Charleston and that the
case is to be carried up to the Supreme Court The
question involved the high character of the counsel
engaged as well the emincnce of the parties who
practically interested in the result, will combine
to render the case one Of unusual interest and
importance.
The Union" states that the Board of Commits
sioners having in charge the subject of the Military