Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-12-31
omitted. This report wa, adopted by major

omitted. This report was adopted by MAJOR
;ty of the Convention, but not without consult
cradle opposition
Thus it appears that the little indulgence
which Georgia and South Carolina procured,
of twenty wears, for the Slave Trade, was pro-
cured by a compromise, and that compromise
was effected in the committee by the AID OF the
circumstance Of 4 conflict relative to the pro-
position in regard to the subject Of navi CATION
acts. Even then it met with considerable OPP
position upon being submitted to the Conveli-
ton This arose from the fact Of the strong
opposition which was felt by most of the States
to the Slave Trade. Most of them had already
prohibited the traffic by State legislation. 1t
had even been cause Of grievance before the
Declaration of independence that Great Bri-
tain continued to force the traffic upon the un.
willing Colonies In the original draft nj
the Declaration Of independence, this was
specified in that array OF Royal lni1ui-
ties set forth in that imperlshah!e paper
in these words (aftcr 'lcnonncing the
slave trade in such language as Jefferson
alone could employ ''lIc has prostltuted his
ncratiye for snpprcssing every legislative at
tempt to prohibit or restrain this exccraoie
commerce" This was struck out in difference
to those States who were still in favor OF that
commerce All this will serve to show the
state of this question prior to the Convention,
aud at the time Ii was one about which there
existed profound concern. Is it likely, then,
that the Convention were framing the Con>ti-
tuition with loose ideas upon this point: Were
they leaving the power which was SO necessary
to he conferred Oh Congress for It's extinction,
r. ,rp,lirofnp.t Ruf
Mr. Martin says the clause AZ finally adopted
was not without considerable opposition. And
OH this point he shows what view Was enter
taincd Of the power conferred by the clause ito
regulate commerce with foreign nations. He
saws lit was urged that. by this system We
were giving the General Government full and
absolute power to regulate commerce, under
which power it would have right to restrain
or totally prohibit the slave trade; it must,
therefore appear TO the world absurd and dis.
graceful TO the last degree, that We should eX-
ccpt from the exercise Of that power the only
branch Of commerce which is unjustitiablc in
its nature and contrary To the rights Of man
kind--that, on the contrary. We ought rather
to prohibit expressly in our Constitution the
further importation of slaves. &c. The power
to prohibit it after the time limited was denied
BY none. Some even desired it 90 be prohibit.
cd by the Constitution itself, and not merely
left to the discretion Of Congress, hc among the
number And had il not been for the comrrc
mise above alluded TO- the power Of Congress
without limitation Of time, would have been
absolute, Or else the Constitution would hav"
contained all express Introduction.
The next authority which ] propose 20 adj
duce, TO prove that this is no ambiguous power.
is that of Mr.. Madison. In one Of lis luIni-
nous articles, Number ~ Of the Fcdcralist, he
saws: The second class Of powers lodged in
the General Government consists ii those
which regulate the intercourse with foreign ma
tons. to.wit: 10 make treaties &c, DC. to
regulate commerce, including power 10 pro.
hibit, after the year lS0s. the importation Of
slaves, and to lay ali intermediate duty If ten
dollars per head. as q encouragement to such
In the same No. he says: 1T
were doubtless to be wished that the power Of
prohibiting the Importation Of slaves had not
been postponed until the year 1905. or rather
thst it had been suffered to have Immediate
operation" Story, in his Commentaries on
the Constitution, vol. ,, 5 1897. says in refer
ence to the clause in the 9TH section: This
clause Of the Constitution. respecting the i'm
portation Of slaves, il manifestly an exception
from the power Of regulating commerce. Nj
grafton seems appropriately to apply to voun-
tary arrivals, Us importation does To involnn-
tary arrivals; and 50 far as IN exception from
power, proves its existence this proves that
the power TO regulate commerce apple, equally
to the regulation Of vessels employed in trans
porting men who pass from place to place vol.
UNFAIRLY. as to those who pass inyoluntariy.
Chancellor Kent, vol. !. page ls0 observes:
The Constitution Of the Cnited States laid the
foundation Of a series Of provisions, to put
final stop to the progress Of this great moral
pestilcnce, by admitting power in Congress
TO prohibit the importation Of slaves, after the
expiration Of the year 1907. Prior to that
time, Congress did all on this subject that it
was within their competence to do This last
sentence refers to acts Of Congress, passed at
an early day after the adoption of the ConSti-
tuition, upon kindred subjects to that Of the
importation Of slaves And these acts We're
passed under the powers contained in the
clause, respecting the regulation Of con-
mcrcc. They were passed too by the early
statesmen. many Of whom were members of
the Convention. By the acts Of March I'D
| Tg4; and May 10th, 1900, the citizens Of the
SulttQ states UIlu TeSVlcItN NIttllil liltNI WIZ
prohibited from engagin in the transportation
Of slaves from the United States. 10 any foreign
place or country, or from one foreign place TO
another. These provisions prohibited our cit-
zens from all concerns in the slayc-tradc, with
the exception Of direct importation into the
United States; and the most prompt and early
steps were taken within the limits Of the Con-
stitution, TO nter1ict that part Of the traffic
also. These latter are the act Of 1907. prohib-
ting the importation Of slaves into the United
States, under severe penalties; the act Of 1878
increasing the penalties. and extending the
prohibition, not only to impOrtationS into the
L. States, but generally against any citizen of
the United States being concerned in the slave
trade; the act Of 49,? authorizing national
armed vessels to DC sent to the coast Of Africa.
to stop the trade 50 far as our citizens were
engaged in it, and subjccting their vessels and
effects to seizure and coniiScaton: and finally
the act OF 1920, which won't still farther, and
mado it punishable as piracy. These last acts
have been recently assaulted as unconstitutional.
by eminent Southern men; and, Of course, if
these are unconstitutional, so must be those of
lTa4 and 1900 Il would seem to be sufficient
to say that they were passed al an early day.
and BY men who ought to have known the en-
tent OF their powers, As many of them were
the trainers of the Constitution itself. The
Courts have adiudicatcd cases arising under
these statutes, and recognized their validity
see the case of the Marine in the ?tl Wheaton.
The ground upon which these acts were al
tackled as unconstitutional in the recent Mont
gomery Convention, was that they arr unequal
in their operation upon the interests Of the
States; that they failed to lay any restraint,
or prohibition upon the immigration of white
laborers to the North, and that that iinmigra
ton Increased the power and added to the
wealth Of that section, while these prohibitions
of the Slave.trade, cut Oft from the South i'm
portations Of negro laborers. and thereby pre-
vented us from that accession To our political
power, and to our wealth. This objection, it
seems to me- il worth anything at all, should
have been made before the Convention which