Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-12-21

The Nashville Patriot and Banner have given place
in their columns TO a written argument from Hon
Ed H. EsING against the constituticnality ofthe pro
postiop before the Legislature to rG the State Of
the evils of the Free Negro population. Mr.. EwNe |
admits that free negroes are not citizens nor are
they in the sense the Constitution nor do
the provisions of the constitution in regard to such
persons appIv to free negroes" But, says Mr. T., |
free negroes who are lawfully here, ARE possessed
of certain rights" that is, freedom from the con
troll of any individual MASTER and the right to
hold propertv' These he says are 'vestcd rights"
and any law infringing them would be IN the face n
provisions in regard 30 retrospective laws, and laws
irnnairinp the obligation of contracts" The whole
argument of Mr.. EwNG is summed up in this para
graph;
Have not free persons of color a right to 1--we
some where If they have not the right 10 live where
they are born and where. at the time they are born
there Is no law 10 prohibit them from living. where
else have they a right to live? All will agree that
any other State may prohibit them from coming IN
10 IT, and this we have in fact done. Ono and New
York NAV refuse to receive them, Canada may shut
her doors and even the King of Dahomey might not
consider them an acceptable present apPrGnenu
that man born free IN land where no prohlDltl''n
exists at his birth against his residing, has an lnle-
rent right TO live there Of which he cannot be de-
priyed except Y a revolutionary measure.
Mr. EwTNGs argument is not well founded While
it is not our purpose to enter at this time INTO
general discussion of the question, few words Will
suffice to show the iallacy Of his position
Suupose for illustration, that instead Of a com
munity of unenslaved Africans, we had a communi-
tv of unenslaved Indians in our mdst-nauyes OF
the soil and if yod please the o'cners Of 1t before
the foot of a white man had crossed our borders
and that these native Indians found dangerous
TO the property and peace of the body polite and an
act their removal OF expulsion pending beto:-
the Legislature would Mr.. EwING question the power
of the Legislature to pass such law? Or instead Of
Indians. suppose there were a community of China
men that by sucrancc had settled within the State,
and under privileges granted 10y the Legislature
were permitted to hold property; and these China
men. AS class should become pest to the bona
fde citizens OF the State and law was pending he
fore the Legislature for their expulsion, as a means
of safety to the State would Mr. EwING contend that
the Legislature had not the power to pass such a
law. and rid the state OF them, Would he contend
that because we have no power to force other com
munities TO take them. that therefore we have no
power to cxpcl them. This wouil be an alb
surItv that We cannot believe lawyer OF his
standing would dar, be guilty OF AMI yet ms pres
ent position stands uaon precisely the same reason
ing. and is therefore equally absurd What natural
or vested right has the Tree negro IN tennessee
that the free Indian would not have: We are not
discussing the sympathetic part OF this SUBJECT We
are speaking of naked legal rights. which Is the
point made Ly Mr.. EWING. Would that gentleman
say in regard to the Indian he does in regard TO
the negro: &c | apprchend that a MAJ born II ee IN
land where no prohibition exists at his birth against
his residing has an inherent right to live there oil
which he cannot be deprived except by revolution
AIRY measure" Surely not.
Mr. Ewing Is compelled to admit in accordance
with the frequent decisions of the Courts that free
negroes are not citizens. are they treemen IN
the sense OF lhc Constitution" 1t follows then II
they are neither citizens nor frecmcn in consttu-
tional sense t,iat they mere subjects living
here not by right--tur none but ireemen anG cltl-
zens have constitutional rights-but by suiicranee
lust as stranger might live in NJ. Ew'NG's family
whom he would have She right to cNpel at any mo
ment 1t became necessary.
As shown Ev the admission of Mr.. EwING. neither
theirr right to liberty their right to property
ccntcrcd in the constitution hut Is wholly depend
ant upon the common and the statute law. which II
At all times subject to repeal 1t follows, therefore
that both their liberty and their property may at
any time be taken from them 10y the same arbitrary
power under which they authorized TO hold 1t
We express our surprise at such an argument iron
such A source endorsed in whole Eand in part 10y
other able gentlemen of the bar.
1t has been a very brief time since the political
marty with which NJ EwING is identified. contcnded
if we mistake not that the legislature might right
a.. ,F uun fuT9llypl WNltt