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

SIoes iinpOrteu IrOIN DeliiS Drought Hi "ou'u
be compelled TO 20 much farther in its lcSisla-
ton than these State laws have yet gone. Ii
would be compelled to enact that no citizen
should hold an imported African slave within
its limits. And this would involve the neces.
sity Of discriminating between native Ameri-
can negroes and foreign-born negroes, which. il
is easy to perceive, would be a very impracti.
cable thing For after an African had been
held few wears in another State which permit
ted the trade, it would be difficult to distin.
sush him from other negroes which might he
brought into the State And then, again, the
native born descendants of the imported Airi
cans would he less dSting,iishable; SO that the
conclusion is the only way the opposing State
could protect itself in its anti-Save trade policy
and avoid being made market and receptacle
: of these Africans, and thereby made to eli
courage the traffic itself would be 10 30 To the
extreme length Of prohibiting its citizens from
bringing in for their own use or persons mn
grating from the other States with negroes
from bringing in any negroes at all Now, is
it suppoSablc that such law would he to!c-
rated BY the people Of any State? Would not
such a law be rulnous to the interest Of state,
and would it not be utterly unconstitutional rs
between slavc-holdinp States. being denial by
orc State To the citizens o! the other states, oi
the privilege Of holding within its limits prop
ortv which it's own citizens were allowed 20
hold: Again. il some Of the States were IA
vorable To the Importation OF Africans. and
others opposed to it. the Increase Of negroes in
those favorable to il would reduce the price Of
negro property there, and in that way cause
negroes To flow from the States which encour.
aged the traffic. TO those opposed 10 it; so that
if The single State Of South Carolina favored
the trade, and all the rest Of the Southern
States opposed il. the inevitable result would
lie. that South Carolina would supply all the
other States with negroes. and the whole south
would br filled with negroes imported into South
Carolina. and there Amcricanized We will say
and thence by the unavoidable course oi trade.
transferred into States where they would COM
mand higher price. So that really, while
one single Southern State allowed the traffic,
the whol.. South would b. inevitably drawn
into it, and affected hv it. The idea, therefore,
Of leaving the question open to each State, 20
decide 10: ITSELF. and allow ar prohibit tho
traffic as it might deem eXpedi"nt or mex
pedcnt, is iallaciouS notion. The whole
South would be at the will 81 Il single State.
which might be rash enough 10 cncas" il il,
and the prohibitions Of the balance. while
they failed 10 effect their own object, would
only make the traffic n"rc profitable 10 tn"
State which had the monopoly. Neither would
il bc material whether or not that single State
was on the coast OF in the interior Of the
country, for the RICH, of importing through
the other States could not he prohibited. on
the same principle that Csrolinian is pro-
tcctc,l in his Slave property. shr i'll tran>itr.
in any free State These considerations derive
additional force from the further reflection, that
al the efforts hitherto made. by any Of The
Slave States. 10 check or prohibit the free
interchange Of Slave property, haze profci
abortiyc, and always will For if negroes are
kept ont by such law, in Georgia, for example
until the price of negroes in Georgia is inuch
higher than in Virginia or South Carolina. the
people Of Georgia will always DO as they have
heretofore. violate the law by common consent,
and repeal it rs soon rs it begins to be felt aS
opposed 10 4 course OF profitable purchase
and trade. So il has been with similar laws
interfering with the Interstate Trade in Slaves.
in other States, and 50 will it ever be. Indeed
il is we'll known that all such laws. which
interfere with the free trade and commerce
among the Slave States, in Slaves, are regarded
by the people As an improper interference, by
government. with their private interests, and
as well might you attempt 10 dam UP the
water, Of the Nile with bulrushes as to enforce
them. Free Trade among the States was
fundamental condition Of the cOniedcracy; and
when .'thc power u regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the States, was
vested in Congress by the Constitution, and
that power guarded by the further provision
already quoted. il was to secure rs far As posi-
bic that commercial equality and freedom
interstate trade which was so essential To their
mutual prosperity. and which. under the old
confederation, was so liable to interruption by
the conflicting legislation Of the States Every
execution 10 this freedom Of trade among thu
States is, to that extent in contravcntion 81
this fundamental policy, and can only he
justified upon principles Of police. necessity
and sclcprcservaton. 1t is upon these princi-
pies alone. that the legislation Of any state.
which threw any obstacles in the way Of
foreign commerce through It's ports, or IN the
way of interstate commerce through It's
borders has ever been sustained; and the
difficulty and labor;oI> discussion, and dis
scntinc opinions Of Judges. which have sprung
out Of cases arising under these laws, have
the obscurity in which the true
line of constitutional distinction is involved on
these subjects. as any one can see 10y reading
the series Of cases in the Supreme Court OF
the United States. from Gibbons W. Ogden
down to those Of Norris vs.. the City Of Boston
and Smith vs. Turner The objection TO these
State laws under which the cases referred 10
have arisen has been that they interrupt the
freedom of trade and commerce. The ground
taken against their validity has BEEN that ''the
power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the States given to Con
grcss by the Constitution. is exclusive Of all
concurrent power in the States over the same
subjects This was the great point in the
celebrated case OF Gibbon vs. Ogden above
alluded to, which was decided by Chief Justice
Marshall, and in which the general principle
that the power in Congress is All exclusive
power is well affirmed How far this general ,
principle is to be applied, to such regulations +
as the States might make in relation to
the slave-trade among themselves il
question which. though often alluded 10 in .
these cases. has not been pointellY decided, 4
that am aware Of I'm Groves vs.. Slaughter.
which went up from the State Of Louisiana -
and which was case involving the validity Of
the provision in the Mississippi Constitution
the importation Of Slayes for sale
the question was made in the argument; Mr..
Clay and Mr.. Webster. both Of whom We're Of
counsel for defendant in error. contendinG, ,
with great energy. that the clause alluded 10
was unconstitutional, because it va, all lit
tringcmcnt by the State of the exclusive power
over commerce vested in Congress The Court.
however, found il convenient to base their
Judgment upon another point in the ease, and
did not decide this point. 1t was, however.
subject of disscnsion among them, and after
the judgment was pronounced by Judge
Thompson, without giving any opinion upon
it, others of the Court expressed their indi-
vidual opinions Oh it, differing widely from each
other. # was acknowledged and felt tn be
point Of dangerous import and the same d.
versity Of opinion which manifested itself in
that case has been exhibited in subsequent adj
indications, whenever the question has been