New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-09-20

ton, adopted By the first Continental Congress,
the slave-trade was warmly denounced, and entire
abstinence from it, and from any trade with those
concerned in il, were mutually stipulated by the
thirteen United Colonies which became parties 10
it, All those except North Carolina, South Caro-
lins and Georgia, had followed up this stipulation
subsequently, to the Declaration Of Independence
by acts of their own prohibiting the African
slsve-trade. These three States seemed to
consider themselves released by the Ter
mination Of the war from the obligation
they had contracted as members OF the
American Association After the peace they re-
commenced the importation Of slaves from Airlcs'
and il was TO satisfy them and in consequence oil
the declarations Of their delegates that other
wise they would not come into the new arrange
ments, provided, that they were allowed to sane
ton during the next twenty years the importation
Of such persons as they might see ht. This conees-
sion, however, was only ayailed Of to a limited
extent. South Carolina had always been in the
habit during colonial times OF passing temporary acts
when produce was low and the slave market over
stocked, suspendng the importation of slaves She
had passed such an act just before the meeting OF
the Federal Convention, prohibiting their I'M
portation for year. Shamed by the example OF
the other States, and by that general sentiment
Of the civilized world which she has since learned
to despse, she went on renewing that act from
time to time, 20 that for fifteen years no slaves
were imported into that State. North Carolina
after while also came into the policy OF prohibi-
ton. The new Constitution Of Georgia, adopted in
1875. contained provision of the same sorts and
for the next six years though Congress had not yet
legislated the subject except to prevent Ameri-
can ships from engaging in the transportation OF
African slaves to foreign countries, the slave
trade remained prohibited by the laws of the
States alone Very early, however, III this current
10Th century, commenced that reaction in favor of
Slavery which slight at first, has attained
in our day to such an extravagant pitch
One Of the first fruits Of this reac-
ton was the passage by the South Carolina
Legislature of an act legalizing the introduction
of African slaves into that State from and after the
LIST Of January, 1904. We may observe of this act,
as has proved true of SO many other move
ments in the same general direction that it rather
damaged than otherwise the interest it was meant
to answer. This revival of the slave-trade by
South Carolina revived at the same time the zeal
of the old revolutionary school of Abolitionists,
which had already begun to nod. Measures were
at once introduced into Congress to prevent the
transfer from South Carolina of these freshly i'm.
ported Africans to the newy-acquired Territory Of
Louisiana-the dogma that Congress had no
right to legslate for the Territories on the subject
of Slavery not having yet been invented. This
revival of the slave-trade by South Carolina
contributed also not little to the prompttude with
which Congress took up the business of its prohi-
btOn, to 90 into effect at the first minute that the
Constitution would allow; whereas, had South Car
DINA not broken the line, it is not improbable that
the prohibition OF the slave trade might have been
suffered to rest on the State laws already in exist
ence. This FLIP on the part of South Carolina
to the nodding Anti.Slavery sentiment Of the
country contributed, also, as we may suppose, to
the New Jersey act for the abolition of Slavery in
that State by which it was Immediately followed
the last movement on the part ola State to the side
of the abolition Of Slavery which We have yet
seen.
We have now before us a document setting
forth with some detail the results of this South
Carolina renewal of the Slave trade so far as re-
laes to the number of slaves imported and the
nationality and ownership of the vessels engaged
in the business. The Importation conferred OF course
at Charleston, the only commercial port in the
State. 1t appears from this return that the whole
number of African slaves imported at Charleston
from the LIST of January 1901 t. the Slst of De-
cember IS07 was 80, rs, being average Of 9,3l4
year. The number of arrivals Of sayers in that
period was POP, Of which 20 belonged to Great
Britain, 81 to Charleston 50 to Rhode Island,
four to Baltimore, three to France, ten to Nor
folk and one each to Boston, Hartford and Swe-
den. OF the slaves brought in, much the larger
part came in the British vessels They amounted
TO 1863. The three French vessels brought
LOS. Of the vessels nominally owned in Char
lesion the greater part Of the csrgoes-sld doubt.
less the vessels too in fact-belonged to ben-resi-
dents, so that of 1923 slaves brought by those
vessels only 1000 are set down as really belong
ing TO merchants and planters of Charleston aud
vicinity. Next 10 the British, the Rhode Islanders
had the largest share in the business, and it is
a noticeable fact in this connection, that Captain
Townshend Of the SLAYER Echo is Rhode Island
man. perhaps the son or grandson Of some
Of those old slave-tra Bristol in Rhode
Island imported into Charleston during the four
years 1914 slaves, Newport BASS, Providence $50,
and Warren go, making in thewhole s,23- brought
in BY Rhode Islanders. Baltimore is set down
for $50, Savannah for 800, Norfolk PSI Hartford
$50, Boston 200, Philadelphia 200, New Orleans
100. OF the consignees of the vessels, 81 were
British. So were Rhode Islanders thirteen natives