Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-09-06
imnorting Africans. and Congress but adoptea

importng Africans, and Congress but aoop .sa
what they mad previously done. ma III .n'
or;,;r.l draft Of the Declaration Oh inuePe'''
J.Hcn the slave trade called .piraticai. mere
~ ~ o,o,,sn Read it and sec whether or not
~ .ue had no authority for calling itplracy'
a.. y,rv makers of the Government call
W =, so in the formation of the political fabric
afic George ILL has wascd cruel wars
,,.;nst human nature ITSELF violating lis most
ssncrcd right of life and liberty in the persons
If n distant people, who never offended him,
captiyating and carrying them into slavery IN
another hemisphere, or to incur miserable ceath
in their transportation thither. This rIRATIcAL
warfare, the opprobrum of intdel powers, is
the warfare Of the Christian King OF Great
Britain. Determined to keep open market
where men should be sold, he has pros
ti,utcd his negative for SupprcssinG even
legislative attempts to prohibit or restrain
this exccrable commerce And that thus
assemblagc of horrors might want no fact
Of distinguished dye, he is now exciting
those very people to rise in arms among us,
and to purchase that liberty Of which he has
deprived them by numbering the people upon
whom he obtruded them (Lossihgs ffeht
Pretty good authority this for Congress to call
the trade piracy" after dict0. Is it not
strange that the Congress Of 1920 should have
never thought of the unconstitutionaity OF
the piracy act: Were the representatives OF
that session not able and well versed i'll Constl-
tutional law? Were not they Us jealous Of the
reserved rights of the people as We are? In
deed, is it not prcSunablc that those living
Il. ,ln,, . La, titpfipp lIOutpG
and breathing its very spirit, should under
stand more Of the mcanin. of the Constitution
than we can understand VINO are not so nearly
related to it: Certainly so. This unconstitu.
tionaity idea came not from the men who
made the Constitution. |, is not the issue o
the brain and heart of conScrvatism-but the
irst.born of firc.cating and dissolution. Its
parent and grand-parent were patriots, but
the issue is bastard-a nntttm htt"s that Tho
people OF the United States, hope, will never
adopt?
But, again. there is another clause in the
Constitution out of which grows an argument
in favor OF my position, potent and conclusive
to the mind Of the entire race Of the doubling
Thomas" 1t is Section 10, Art. ], and reads
''rhe migration or importation Of such per
SONS aS any of the States now existing shall
think proper TO admit, shall not be prohibited
10y the Congress prior to the year lSos, nc
affirm that this section recognizes aprev
Gus grant of power to Congress to prohibit
the African slave trade otherwise the section
is ambiguous and unintclligiblc. Mr.. fanccy
CONSTITUTES it TO mean that the Constitution Shall
not be altered so rs to gre TO Congress tho
power to prohibit the slave trade prior to tho
wear 1905; or, in other words, that Congress
has not the power to prohibit and that the
people Of the United States shall moi
| gtrc the power before lS0S. That TIE
! Emtiation contained IN tie section is nat HloI
| the yorer n Congress, brit is upon tie po'cer q
tic people to alter or change tie Consultation
This rendering is at war with all the rules 0
construction, and ignores material member
the section, to wit: AS any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit" Mari
the simple, plain, -Anglo-Saxon language OF tht
section. And now can even the phantom OF Alr
Yancey's idea be dug out of il: They, thu
wise, unsophistica,cd men Of 90, who in wrtin;
and talking always went right to the point; dit
no, say that the ConSti'ntiOn shall not he aU6fo'
before the year 1905. Nothing like it. The,
could have so said, and would. il that had beer
their intention. But in lieu of SO saying, they
did say that the C9agress shall not prohibit.
Why say to Congress, you shall not prohlblt
when Congress had no power to prohibit
Why say 10 the Congress, do not exercise
certain power. when it has 40 power to act
Did the trainers Of the Constitution, like TIT
prophets of Raal, address themselves toa phan
tom or, Ike the true prophet did they ad
dress an actually: DO men ordinarily speal
to entities or to non-entticS! To my mind,
is entirely clear, that the trainers of the Con
stitution understood that they had granted t.
the Congress tho power to prohibit the African
slave trade, or they would not have laid an.
restriction upon the exercise OF the powe
granted 1t must be conceded that they pos
scsscd ordinary intelligence; and if they hat
meant to say that the Constitution shall not b'
altered before the year 1905, us Mr.. Vance!
saws, they would have said So They were no
capable of the GORGEOUS verbal blunder thai
Mr. Yancys rendering compcls them TO have
made And then there is that >uperiluou,
clause, las any Of the States now existing slial
think proper to admit" What is to be done
with il. 1t stands for an idea. Those who
wrote it meant something-and what did they
mean. 1t cannot be tortured. IT is too sig
niticant Docs it not mean, and can II NEAR
ANYTHING else, than that the Congress shoulC
not prohibit the SLAVE trade, as to the State:
existing at the time Of the adoption Of the Con
stitution, who thought proper to allow it, while i
dill grant the power to prohibit the slave trade
in all the States admitted into the Union bcior,
the year 1908: How can it DC construed other
wise: Read it and see {: 1.-The migration o.
importation Of such persons as any OF th'
States NOR eristiny shall think proper TO admit
| shall not he prohibited prior to the wear 1865.
For the opinion | entertain, II gentlemen
will not respect it, must call in to my aid tn
"Dred Scott case. There | have authority
am, respectfully,
AuErGH, ALABAMA. K. Z. III.