Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-16
THE ISSUE THE SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Reading Room Associations.
THE ISSUE THE SUBJECT CONTINUED.
We must not forget the position Of the INDIE
pendent Democracy, assailed by the Washing
ton Sentinel, viz: that by the original policy
of the fathers Of the Republic, Slavery was
restricted within State limits and Freedom was
to be secured to every person outside Of State
limits, and under the exclusive jurisdiction Of
the General Government The first argu-
ment against this position, urged BY that paper,
that the slave trade was sanctioned, continued,
and protected, by the fathers Of the Republic,
and therefore their original policy could not
have been as stated in the Address, we dis
posed of yesterday.
The assertion made by the Sentinel, in con-
nection with this argument--that slaves on the
high seas in American vessels are held as
chattels, solely and exclusively by virtue Of the
exclusive jurisdiction Of the General Govern
ment D-as we showed, involved not only the
affirmation Of Principle, fundamental in the
creed of Independent Democracy, but the repu-
diation Of the policy of Non Intervention as adj
vocated by that journal.
Proceeding, them to examine whether it was
true or false, we showed that there was no pro-
vision in the Constitution Of the United States,
in virtue Of which slaves on board American
vessels on the high seas could be continued as
such.
At this point we resume the argument. We
admit that there is q iaw of Congress, assum-
ing jurisdiction over the transportation Of
slaves coastwise, and recognising them as slaves
on their passage from one port to another in
the United States. 1t is part and parcel Of the
act passed by Congress in 1907, for the aboli-
ton of the foreign slave trade, and the object
of it was to prevent the coastwise trade in slaues
who might be brought from Cuba, or Africa,
or other foreign countries IN evdsion Of the act
II was not intended to encourage, or sanction,
or protect the coastwise trade in slaves; the
trainers of the act were intent upon another
object, seeking indeed in good faith to carry
out the original policy of the fathers Of the
Republic. So exclusively was their attention
directed to this end, that they overlooked the
implied sanction contained in the terms Of
the act to the transportation Of slaves coast
wise The sections containing this implication,
but designed to prevent infraction or invasion
of the prohibition against tho importation of
slaves, provided that slaves should not be trans
ported coastwise from one port to another in
the United States in vessels under forty tons
burden, that all slaves thus transported should
be described particularly in the manifests, and
that the shipper should swear that they were
not imported into the United States after Janu.
airy /, 1908.
The existence Of these provisions proves moth
ing against the position, taken in the Address
in respect to the "original policy Of the fathers
of the Republic" because the great object of
the law of which they are part, was to carry
out the original policy Of Slavery restriction,
and because their real intent was simply to
prevent the fraudulent evasion of the Law
but, if this be denied, and If we admit, for the
sake Of the argument that their intent as
well as effect was TO protect and encourage
Slavery outside Of State limits and within the
exclusive jurisdiction Of the General Govern
ment, then they prove departure from that
original policy" and not its non-existence.
Apart from the bearings Of these provisions
on the general argument, do they sustain the
assumption Of the Sentinel that slaves are
held as such in American vessels on the high
seas, in virtue Of the exclusive jurisdiction Of
the General Government If they do, they
are unconstitutional, and incompatible with
tho policy and the doctrine Of non-interven-
ton. Where is power conferred in the Con-
stitution, on Congress, to make or hold slave
IL can no moro make slave than king, as
was well said by q Democratic member Of Con-
gress. Not only is no power conferred to
make or continue Slavery, but the General
Government is positively restricted from depri-
wing any person Of life liberty, or the pursuit
Of happiness, without due process Of law.
If the provisions Of the act of 1907, then,
are designed 10 continue the status Of Slavery
on the high seas from the moment the slaves,
shipped at an American port pass beyond
State jurisdiction, they are clearly unconsti.u-
tional, and therefore null and void
That they are incompatible under every as
poet with the doctrine Of Mediterranean,
scarcely needs an argument. If their design
be as Just stated, or if in the language of the
Sentinel they sanction and protect Slavery on
the high seas they constitute q clear case Of
aagrant Intervention with Slavery by the