Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-15
THE ISSUE.

defining tho precise ground of opposition to the
Nebraska Bill in its present form:
1--WE believe no permanent adjustment OF
that question possible, except BY return to
that original policy Of the fathers Of the Re-
public, by which Slavery was restricted within
State limits, and Freedom, aoithout exception or
lmiiation, aras 10 be secured 10 eUery person out
side of State hints, and under the exclusive ju-
risdiction of the General Government
This paragraph may be considered, first as
asserting fact--that it was the original poll
cy Ct the fathers of the Republic, that Slavery
should be restricted wifhin State hints, and
Freedom be secured to every person outside Of
Stots limits, and under tie erclusive jurisdiction
of the General Government"
The Sentinel denies this, and attempts to dis
prove ii by several considerations We con.
graduate that journal upon its attempt to
argue the real issue between the Pro Slavery
and Anti. Slavery men. True, its logo is not
compact and its argument is verbose and de-
clamatory; but as it means to be argumenta-
tive, it deserves some attention.
Ia disproof Of the assertion in the Address, it
refers to the provisions Of the Constitution in
relation to the foreign slave trade, and to fugi-
tives from service or labor, and the existence of
Slavery among the Indian tribes.
Does the assertion of the Address" it asks,
"6nd countenance and support in the fact, that
the fathers Of the Republic made the most
careful provision to secure Slavery outside
State limits,' by giving their sanction, counte-
nance and the national protection, to those nm
cestors Of the present Free Soil party TO make
Slavery outside State limits and to bring
them in these State limits ss slavesi The
national flag, carrying with it the exclusive
jurisdiction Of the General Government
waved its folds with sure protection over the
decks Of those vessels in which were those
fathers from whose loins sprang the present
Free Soil party, in their work of charity, in
buying, capturing, and transporting slaves,
from without State limits acting, according
to the denunciations Of their Free Soil chill
dren, the pimps and panders' to the more
iudicious stakeholder at home. The national
flag, emblaxoned with the exclusive jurisdic-
ton Of tho General Government secured
Slavery, without exception or limitation to
every negro outside Of State limits who
should fall into the hands Of these ancestral
pimps and panders' to the home purchasers Of
slaves. This was the policy of the fathers OF
the Republic as it was the practice of the
fathers Of the Free Soil party
Aside from the flummery Of this paragraph
the point Of the argument is this-that the
foreign slave trade was sanctioned, counte-
nanced, and protected, by the Federal Govern
snsnt, from the organization Of the Constitu-
fion down to the year ls0s-thsr.fors il was
not the policy Of the fathers of the Republic
to secure Freedom to every person outside Of
State limits, and under the exclusive jurisdic-
tion of the Federal Government simple
statement Of facts will show the fallacy of this
Under the Congress of the Confederation,
the States had the power to regulate their
trade with foreign nations. They levied i'm
posts or duties, just as they pleased, provided
they did not interfere with any stipulation Of
treaties, entered into by Congress with any
King Prince, or State, in pursuance of any
treaties already proposed by Congress to the
Courts Of France and Spain !" and the United
States were prohibited from any act or treaty
q whereby the Legislative power of the respect
ave States shall be restrained from imposing
such imposts or duties on foreigners as their
own people are subjected to, or from prohibit.
ing the expectation or importation of any spe-
ciss Of goods or merchandise whatsoever
They might tolerate or forbid the trade in
slaves allow or prohibit the migration or i'm
portstion Of any class Of persons from abroad,
ct their pleasure.
In the Convention that framed the present
Constitution, the power TO regulate trade with
foreign nations, after much elaboration, was
transferred from the States to the United
States; and it was the strong desire Of the ma
jority Of the delegates, including those from
Virginia and Maryland, to surrender to the
United States the entire power over the migra-
zion or importation Of persons from abroad.
This was strenuousy resisted by South Caro-
lima and Georgia, until at last Compromise
was proposed, which was sustained by dele
gates from the Eastern States Investing Con-
gress with the power to pass navigation laws
by . simple majority, and with the power to
prohibit in the year 1908, the migration or i'm.
portation Of such persons as the original States
might think proper TO admit prior to that
time, and meanwhile to impose tax ON such
importation, not exceeding ten dollars q head.
Before the adoption Of the Federal Contitution,
then, the United States had no powsr over the
Slave trade. By the adoption Of the Constitu-
tion, after hard struggle springing from the
jealousy Of South Carolina Of the Federal pow
or, the Uaitsd States we're invested with the
suthorityto prohibit that trade IN the year
1908, and 10 discourage 10 before that period
AZ matter Of fact the power 10 discourage
Il was exercised the moment the new Govern
msnt went into operation BY the year 1898,
I'll the States had laws in force prohibiting the
trade absolutely, and an act Of Congress inn
posed the scverest penalties for the infraction
of those laws; and in 1908, 20 soon as the
Constitution allowed, the United States enac
ed their famous law for the total suppression Of
AZ k~n<fe