Des Arc citizen., 1859-05-18
The African Slave Trade
From the Mssissippian.]
 To the .Mensbers of the Southern Convcn-

To the .Members of the Southern Convcn-
 tioa:
 | GENTLEMEN This subject is assuming an increased interest every day.
 The ninth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, is in the | following words: 18
 "Fhe migration or importation of such per sons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year 1908 but tax or duty may be imposed on such impor- tation, not exceeding ten dollars for each per son.''
 This is the only section, or sentence, in the Constitution, which alludes to this trade. Under this clause, Congress has assumed the power to legisate, commencing in 1907, and running up to 1920. when the trade was made piracy. We deny any such power in Con- gress.
 Up to the formation of the Constitution, each colony, or State, possessed and exercised the rigbt to import AfricaAs. If they have not relinquished the right by that instrument, ing, except what is expressly granted, or what Is absolutely necessary to carry out all express grant. in the above section, it is strongly in dicated that, after 1908, Congress shall have the power to prohibit such '' migration and iIn- portation;" but as that is a mere inference, and no express grant is given, we hold they cannot do more than levy a l" tax or duty" of ten dollars upon each person imported. If the Constitution intended to invest Con- gress with the power, how easy it would have been to say so in express language. | To our mind, then, the proposition is most clear, that the right to import Africans origi- nally belonged to the States, and not having been {. delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, it is reserved to the States respectively or to the people ;'' and as a necessary corol- lary, any of the States may now import Afri- cans, subject to a ( tax or duty" by the Govern ment.
 Nor are we deterred in the expression of this opinion by the fact that the courts have decided differently No human tribunal is perfect; and judges are but men. New lights are being shed every day, around even consti- tutional questions. When this question was adludicated, it was new, and many of the statesmen of the South not only acquiesced in, but desired it settled in the way it was. Slavery was then thought to be not only a moral, but a political evil; and the African slave trade, crying sin. Under such circum stances, it is not strange that the courts should have taken latitude in construction, not wal ranted by the Constitution, and which they would utterly refuse now.
 The States of this Union cannot consent to part with their rights, upon the assumptions of Congress- or the doctrines of the courts, creatures of their own making.
 Upon the preservation of these rights de- bends the liberty of the people, and the exist ence and purity of the Government. Let them be tainey surrendered, and the constantly ac- cumulating power at Washington will soon make this consolidated and despotic Govern ment, with all the elements of evil, and none of the qualities of good.
 At this critical juncture, when the power of the Government is likely to pass into the hands of an irresponsible and reckless, and, we will add villainous Black Republican ma jority, ready to plant its heavy heel upon every thing Southern, it behoves the States to watch, with double vigilance and care, all their original rights and powers. Take it for granted, however, that Congress has jurisdic- tion of this subject, by what right do they make the ofense piracy?
 Piracy is as well defined as any crime known to criminal law not only by common con sent, Photographers, common law, the statutes of all nations, but also by the laws of nations. It is "robbery upon the high seas ;o and hence a pirate is considered < an enemy to mankind" By what sort of reasoning, or legerdemain, can Congress declare the pur- chasing of an African in Africa, or Kidnapping a negro on the coast of Africa, or the sale of an African on the high seas, or the landing of an African in any of our ports, with the inten- tion to make slave of him, piracy?
 As legislative body, Congress can do nothing except what legitimately belongs to 1t as such. Whenever the fundamental law expressly authorizes an act, it can be done, and such other acts as necessarily grow out of such power.
 A proposition, self-evidently absurd, cannot be made good sense, or logical, by act of Con gress.
 Suppose Congress were to pass law declar- ing black was white and white was black, or that two ani two make five, or that a monkey was endowed with reason, or that larceny was murder, does any one believe such law would be legitimate or effectual? It would be considered not only dead letter, but ridi- culous. And why? Because such matters are not within the scope of legislative func- tions and jurisdiction.
 The very organism of that body, the pur- poses for which it was constituted, the rules of common sense which govern all legislative bodies, as we'll as their usages, prohibit Con- gress from doing that which does not appertair to it's duties.
 Apply these principles to the act of Con- gress making the African slave trade piracy. and they show clearly that they have done an act in itself absurd and preposterous.
 We apprehend this power has been assumed nnder the eighth section of the first article o1 the Constitution, in which Its powers are emu merated. to wit; < To define and punish pira- cies and felonies, committed on the high seas and offenses against the laws of nations"
 That certainly does not give to Congress tht power to make any other crime piracy, whicf | is not recognized as piracy, by the laws of al nations. It certainly does not mean that If ; man was to commit a rape, while sailing iron 1 Africa to Charleston, Congress may rightfulll declare it piracy. z They shall define ant punish piracy,n etc. The term "piracy,' used in the sentence, is an express limitation and shows that nothing more was meant thai that Congress might more fully and more spe ,.iically state and define piracy, so that n' anibbles and subterfuges should screen offend CTS. If it had given to Congress the power t define what offenses committed on the higl seas should CONSTITUTE piracy then the as sumption would be founded upon more piau sible grounds In the same section of th Constitution, Congress has power " to regulat commerce with foreign nations" Should tn l advocates of this law claim the power unde this sentence, they would be arming Congres with power. not only ssto regulate," but destroy commerce with foreign nations. Flo if the right can be exercised with regard t Africans, as an article of commerce, It can lexercised with regard to any other article commerce and Congress could declare tn lpurchase of iron in Cuba, blooded horse Arabia. Cashmere goat in Persia, bag coffee in Cuba, or yard of silk in Chm; piracy. This would be regulating commeFc
 i;ih foraian nations with a vengeance.