Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-12-31

that vague and changeable test Ol equality "a>
prescribed, and if regulation comes up to it
there is an end Of the dispute about its equall-
ty of operation Here is the rule NO tax
or duty shall be laid on articles exported from
any State. Va preference shaH bG giren by
any reputation OF commerce or r'f'hve, Z" me
porfs oi' one stat. "f.r those 81 another: mr.
shaU ,...ssls ioumd 10 ~ iron one Strt'', be
obliyt' Ia 6nier cle"r ar i"@ mites az "H-
oth.r." If these acts violate THIS provision
they are unconstitutional on the ground oil IN
equality. The wisdom Of prescribing such I;
: test is manifest in every view We can take "'
il. 1t would be extremely unreasonable to say
! that law, general in its terms, and relating u
the commerce Of the entire country, should be
subjected to the trial of experience, 10 aSccr'
! tain whether or moi il would work out WIG
perfect equality upon thc diversified interest, o'
every section and every State, ana then alter
the trial. that it should be decided. that il was
constitutional or unconstitutional; and equally
unreasonable it, from the inevitable diversity oi
interests il should not prove equal III lis ap-
plicabity 10 these sections " states. to declare
it unconstitutional This would destroy all
legislation. And see in what contradictory
way that test would be- applied in reference IL
the very measures under consideration. There
is g large class Of Northern people vino regard
the influx Of the foreign population rs al evil
to the North--a> great evil To them. in
the estimation of some. rs the influx OF wild
Africans would Lc in the estimation d! others.
into the South. Now. might they not com
plain that these regulations Il commerce which
exclude African importation upon the South,
and leave open their ports TO the influx Of the
foreign population. III JUS; 10 the North and
! unequal in their operation: Might rot the
Northern laborer say. yon pour upon IL the
I laEorins population from Europe and reduce
the wages Of our labor; whereas. III the south.
you exclude the importation Of African Slave
labor, and thereby keep M the wages ol labor
in the South: These Illustrations are sufficient
10 show that there is ~ other test oi equality.
which can properly be- applied, but that one
which the Constitution has fixed for itself.
And here, perhaps, might close the inveSt-
CATION of that branch Of the subject relating ~
the conStitutionality Of the power OF Congress,
and the alleged nnconStitutionality "f those
act, passed in pursuance of that power. But
there are come other considerations growing
out Of this question ol constitutional power,
which are important in their bearing upon this
policy. and upon the destiny Of the South a> it
stands connected with il.
Those who have raised this question Of con-
Stitutionality and who have asSaied the ieslS-
laton OF Congress on that ground, have seemed
10 regard the repeal of these laws - simply a
removal of all obstacles oft Of the way Of such
State legislation on the subject, any state
might desire t. make. 1t was ingcniouSly
stated, bv one ol very great ability III the last
Southern Convention. that he did not ask OF
Congress the establishment Of the Slave
Trade; bnt simply repeal Of the odiuS acts
upon their statute book supprcsSing it, that it
might then be regulated by the supply and de-
mand Of Slave labor Now. by this proposition
i, was either meant. that. when these obStrIc-
tons were removed. the States should separate
Is lcgislatc upon the question according to their
own respective views of lis eXpcdicncv. Ms an
open question, ard rc.cstabliSh the Trade ~
not, Is each State might determine for itself, or
else that the repeal Of these acts would leave
the trade already open. without State lcgi>ia-
ton permitting il, and that il should he left to
regulate itself by the commercial rules 81 sup
ply and demand, as any other branch Of lawful
commerce. What the real import Of this pro-
position was, will perhaps be better understood
bv examining what would be the legal con>c-
ouenceS Of the repeal thus demanded The dis
tinction attempted 10 be drawn between re-
peal by Congress Of the Federal Statutes and
an actual re-cStablishment Of the Trade by Con
cress, although there may he technically and
theoretically = legal distinction, is, to all prac-
teal intcnts and purposes u distinction without
difference Il cannot be denied that the re-
peal Of those acts will open the traffic IS insiant
and without one word affirmatively authorizing
il in the repeating act rs TO all the States where
Slavery exists, and where there does lot exist
any statute Tor consti ut;onal provisonl Of the
State. prohibiting it within its limits. Those
who imagine that il would require an express
act By any State authorizing the traffic, before
it could be engaged in by the people Of that
State. after the laws Of Congress are repealed
greatly mistake the law Of the case. Under
tho law Of nations, the Slave Trade Is rccog-
nizcd as Il legitimate branch Of commerce to all
countries which do not prohibit it by express
municipal law, or treaty. And the citizens Of 4
country whose municipal laws or treaties do
not prohibit it, cannot be INSTRUCTED in the
traffic. bv the laws Of those countries which do
prohibit il. In other words. if the acts Of Con
crcss were now repealed, the people Of the
Southern States. where no State statute or Con
stitution inhb:ts the introduction Of slaves,
could not be prohibited or obstructcd in the
laws or Conventions of Great Britain, France.
or any other foreign power For the laws Of
other nations could only operate, where their
municpal jurisdiction extended, consistently
with the theory of public law, 10 the persons
of their own citizens. or those found within their
limits or on board their vessels. These prin-
ciplcs are well settled by the Judgments Of the
highest British and American Courts. In the
ct. ,,.t,,, lish
and the lie Louis, which was French vessel.
captured as SaverS, the High Court Of Adml-
raity in England affirmed these principles. -
And in the case of Madrazo vs.. Willes. the
Court Of Kings Bench held the same doctrine,
declaring that the British Statutes against the
Slave Trade were only applicable 10 British
subjects, and only rendered the Slave Trade
unlawful when carried on by them. The British
Parliament could not prevent the subjects Of
other States from CARRYING on the Trade ont OF
the limits Of the British doninions IL ship
he acting contrary 10 the general law Of nations.
she is thereby subject to condemnation: but 1t /
is impossible 10 say that the Slave Trade WAS
contrary to the general law NJ nations. In the
case of the Antelope. the Supreme Court OF the
United States held the same principles. and de-
clared that it was not pracy. except 50 lar as
it was made so Ivy the treaties or statutes OF
the nation to which the party belonged. 1t
might still be carried on by the subjects If
M0st natioas, RHO hire n"i pr0h1iN 4 by
ulvuirjpal nets or treaties. See ~ Wheaton.
i6. So that it is clear. when these acts of orr
Congress are repealed, this Trade will not only
not he prohibited to us nor ob>tructed by the
codes Of other powers. Jvt rW be optn amt .trte
uudcr tie lar Of nations. and no more dcpen-'l
dent upon State law 10 authorize or open it,
than is anv other branch Of lawful commerce.
The authority for it will not be required TO con-
sist of an express municipal law, establishing
it. or expressly permitting it to be carried
on. It will only require, that passive per-
mission which will arise from the fact that
it is not prohibited by our municipal acts
o.. ..aa.;ac Tint i. all the tcst that the