Washington sentinel., 1854-03-08
GRoyEs VS.. SLAUGHTER.

This important case was argued by Mr.. Web
ster and others, during the January term the
Supreme Court, ls4l. 1t is reported in 18th
Peters, at considerable length. One of the
principle points in controversy, was whether the
clause in the constitution Of the State of Mis-
sissippi prohibiting after certain date, the
importation Of slaves within the territory of that
State, was repugnant to that provision of the
Constitution Of the United States, which grants
to Congress the right to regulate commerce"
Mr. Webster held the affirmative Of this ques-
ton, and in the course Of his argument, sub
mitted the following views to the Court:
"The powers conferred on Congress, are
duties; and they are to be exercised for the
good of the States. What is the foundation of
the right to slaves? There is no law declaring
slaves property any more than land. Slaves
are property by the term "slaves." The mas.
ter has right to their service and labor. This
is property.
"The Constitution recognizes slaves as pro-
perty. Slaves escaping from the State in which
they are held to service and labor may be
arrested in other States, and carried back to
the State from which they escaped. The right
to take them up, is an acknowledgment Of the
right of property in them. The Constitution
was adopted during the existence of slavery in
more than onehalf Of the States; and thus the
protection of this right Of property in the inter
course between the States, became duty under
- ro,s+;tntion
"The Court are called upon to say that the
State of Mississippi may prohibit the transport
alton into that State of any particular article.
The Court will be obliged to find out something
in the introduction of slaves, different from
trading in other property. This will be diff
ficult.
"Suppose, under some excitement, the intro
duction of cotton into the State of Massachu-
sets had been prohibited, and this was retail
ated by a prohibition Of the introduction into
a cotton-planting State Of cotton fabrics. Would
not this be an interference with the power of
Congress to regulate commerce? Slaves are
as muck property in Mississippi and in Caro-
lima as cotton"
|, viii be perceived that Mr.. Webster dis
tinctly affirms that the Constitution recognises
slaves as property" and that as property the
rights powers, and duties Of the general gov
ernment relating to it, are the same and only
the same as can be exercised by Congress over
cotton fabrics If this be admitted, we ask
what authority exists on the part of Congress,
10 prohibit the owner of this particular species
of property from carrying it to any place where
any other kind of property may be transported9
How can Congress constitutionally pass any
law, subiecting slave property to disabilities
which are not attached to all kinds2 Few, we
presume, would admit the power Of the gene
raj government to prevent a citizen OF any OF
the States Of the Union from carrying the do
mestic utensils of his household into the Terri
tories of the United States, and no one we sup
pose would agree that Congress has the power
to declare that the products Of the earth should
not be the subjects Of barter and sale. If, then,
in the language of Mr.. Webster's argument
slaves are by the Constitution considered as
property Congress can make no regulations
with respect to the existence of that sort Of
property in the Territories, which it cannot or
does not make concerning oil other kinds All
the powers which have been conferred on Con-
gress must be exercised with uniformity and
equality, and the rule which excludes the south.
ern slave, would forbid northern merchandise.
IL on the other hand, slaves are considered
by the Constitution as persons, is there any
more strength in the position maintained by the