New-York daily tribune., 1858-12-10
THE reno CASE.
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT.
ConspoIoeBce 81 The ~ y. TrbGDs.

pIisOlers the motion that they 30 dl-cbsrg." Hom
coIfIemeut He quoted the return OF the har-bs 70
the writ Of habeas corpus 70 shoE that the waHants
Of commitment were issued on the charge thsi the
rii-one,s had violated the act of Congress ot May 3D.
1920 aud that on that charge they had been pa, 10
iai and woie there yet to answer the proceeding oi
ihe Cunt. A. thi. was the process which the
prsopers were Committed 70 jaJ GnI The authority
uuoer which they are pos neld he conceived taat II
would b. sufficient 10 show that the law they were
clor,ed with violating "a. not N conformity with tne
Cou.tution Of the United States, ard consequently
!, valid ard this was shown to the sst'sfac"n OF the
Cont then le held that the COur; woulf b. justified
in ceci,rIrg the grOund oi detebtJa nrnfhceLti hhd
IN oroenne Their scbarpe.
The question was Of as grave importance as
could be raised before the Court. IL vas oi inp"r-
tapce 10 the defense because ii they established tner
point il would release from confinement the prisoners,
who wOuld otherwise be held In custody. Bot u was
Of graver importance still ~ question that invovei
tbe st.b,lity ard p4rnlarency OF the Union. /, hal
come TO be npres, % upon the public mind that tie
Tul.p yss divided INTO sections, hostile to each
other had come to beimpressed upon the public MOD
that laws were on the statute book fasDrDg the lnst-
tu,ions and the sentiments OF one recti)n oil the
Union and not warranted by the CObstltutipn 1t the
minds Of the people OF the South can be- brought 10
the conviction that this particular act j. uDcOnstta
tional and should be declared void then, il IL Is
not 30 declared, revolution must be the mevitA-
bic result. This might be strong language, Dut
it Was the language OF truth; atd II tne CIurS
would be the break waters against aggression,
and give To the Sonth that protection she co1h
never Otherwse enjoy then must toey meet the ques-
ton boldly and decide II acc'rdDg 10 the rlght III
might be urged as ground Of objection that, while
the law Las been iD e1Isepcs nearly forty years tue
| question raised was a new tne, and nad never
before been brought before the Court. But tbeif
HoIors would recollect that the conshtuiiopahy oi
the Missouri COMPROMISE itself had not been asoaied
m Ill within few years past and that hitherto the
only deciseIs the lave affecting the save-trade
had been made in that section OF the country where
the interests Of the States adverse to the tra1e
Der &C. and where the counsel who should upnold the
slave traffic in any form would do so with the cohVc-
tiOn thst the opinion of the entire community Was
against him. The fact Therefore, that so long
space of time has elapsed during which there hss
been apparent acquiescence la the Law, caLnot
be urged sound and sufficient objection against
now advancing the question of Its oonstitutionaiiy
He took the position, them that If Congress pos
sessed the constitutional power to pass the act OF May
Is 1920 that power must have been grautei BY the
Con stituion. Our Government is one OF united
power. II had no existence until the Cons.hooa Vas
aGOpted-EO power until the Constitution went Tito
eff Ct. II the intent of that instrument tn ioI,
not National Govern meDt with Unlimited power, bot
coniederacy whose powers should be defined ana dis
tLct. There is rect evidence in the ConstitutiJ Jn
teet, that the power lot especially granted 10 Con-
gress should be reserved to the States and the Sd
preme Court in s decisions had held t1at the sover
eign power sted in the State Governments by the
Constitution must remain unmpared unless directly
delegated to Congress by tb 1t iDsrumen III, then,
Congress possessed the power to psss the law under
which these commitments were made, there mu'. be
a clause IN the Constitution under whIch thdt power
conferred. There are but two clauses in that in-
srument by which il can he claimed such power was
delegated To the General Government. The nret is
the 10th clause Of the Sh section of the st article OF
the Constitution, which gives the power To punish p-
rscy and felony the high aud against the la"
el patCps apd the second is tue third clause OF the
Sth section Of the let article, which gives the power
to regulate commerce.
He would first cor sider whether the authority to
pass the act Of 1870 was embraced within the power
delegated to Congress 70 regulate commerce. IL
would be appare to their Honors that if the const
tutiOpalify of the act claimed under THIS power
It's provisions could only referer to the trade th tor
eign countries. This must be evident from the tact
that in the clause Of the Constitution comforting tee
power the word tph is used in relation To foreign
countries, in dDect cOitradstinctlon 10 the wJid
amongst in relation to our o~u States. Congress " -
empowdered to regulate commerce wth foreign
countries and 0nOnRa the States OF the Union. lac
conclusion is inevitable that this regulation was rot
meant TO be amongst, or between foreign countries,
and Ii at the did not pretend To confer
upop Cor gress the power " regulate commerce be-
foreign countries, but only t. regaate the COM
merce ot foreign countries with this. Independent
Governments legisate for themselves not for others
and it WAS clearly beyond the power OF tue
Congress Of the United States to say In wnat
mauner England ard Cuba, Ceylon and Cal
CUTS or Cuba and Dahomey, should conduct t1elf
traffic; for all are, 81 respect to this Government,
sovereign Ss,ef, and, as such our Governmept coud
not exercise any power over them. But TINS law, II
for the regulation Of commerce al MI Is not io ts
regulation Ndh foreign countries-a commerce ID
which this Government is party. Io come Sthin
the penalty of the aw, the slaves transported or re-
cei,ed a vessel must not be held to service or
labor in either of the States or Territories o the
United States. And inasDuch as the law seeks to
punish the transportation of uch slaves between two
foreign countries, the commerce with which II nteT.
eres is clearly Lot the commerce the reguiatol oi
which is authorized by the clause of the Constitution
under consideration. IT, then, it De clear that tbs
commerce carried on between two ioreiga couA,
ries al d. Therefore, not within the juis ction of
Congress certainly Congress can have no power to
pbish the paIiicpators in 1t.
The counsel theI argued tha If Congress posse ssed
the power 10 punish these acts confined as ihey we're
10 foreign coul tres they would bavs sso the power
TO n. abe other acrs performed In foreign coau'res
criminal He questionto whether uuder this COZ
stIuclon OF the Constitution, they might not claim the
right to interfere with himself and h- learned ti-ni,
the Dstric, Attorney should they feel Dcined III WIN
ter 10 skate on the waters OF the Baltic, or In Summer
time TO dance in the vine groves OF An1n!lsa. Bd.
praptirg for the sake CT argument that Congress had
the right regulate commerce 6etTetn foreign conn-
ies be ttl held that the act OF witch the prisoners
were accused, was not an ec IN cerogatiVn oi lnc
rs hi to regulate commerce at al.
To regulate is TO form by rule The dehuition o tnc
word in the dictionaries was clear. IL was 10 put IN
good orderto improve the con ition OF the tnng 10
be reeulsted, not TO destroy. Ii he intrnsed wacn
with q man 10 be regulated that man bad no adthcnty
10 nut II on an anvil and smash il. He might prove
by dozen witnesses that he had received t,e watch
with authority 10 regulate II, bat that would not 1oi
him hsrmless for destroying II. In Ike manner II
Congress received the power to regulate commerce
between two foreign countries that wouli not imply
the power 10 put entire stop to that commerce..
But il II seeks 10 prevent the transportation OF slaves
from Cuba TO Dahomy il dettroys the thing IT Is au-
thorizet 10 regulate. Such law would stop COM
merce rot regulate il. He thought, therefore, inst
under the power 10 regulate commerce with forcign
,tvie tIeYp be %