The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-08-25
MR.. DOUGLAS MUST WRITE ANOTHrp
LETTER.

Some OF the Republican and semi-RepuhU.
can newspapers are in ecstacies with Mr.. Dou,.
lass last bold, frank, aud manly" letter. In
which he declares that he is unaltcraby or.
posed to the revival Of the slave trade W.
have pointed out the fact that the leaders of
the movement in behalf of the slave trade
profess to be as much opposed to its revival a,
Mr.. Douglas. All they insist upon Is simply
the repeal Of the laws which punish the traffic
in order that the States may dispose Of the
matter in their own way. They insist that
is not a legitimate subject of Federal legisIa
ton, but purely Sta'e matter. Now, the oue.
ton is, whether Mr.. Douglas is willing to goa
step further, and say that under no circum
stances will he favor the repeal of the Law,
which punish the slave trade as piracy. Tha,
is the position which he has not yet taken.
We have already noted the fact THAI Mr.
Douglas bases his opposition to the revival Of
the slave trade, not upon the ground of IL,
crminality, but upon the fact that its abolition
was one Of the compromises Of the Coustitu.
ton. He has no conscience or moral sense 10
be offended, but is a sticBler for the inyioab,e
faith of compromises But Mr. Douglas i'm.
poses upon his Northern friends by mere
trick of words-a sophstical statement of the
case. The truth as, that the Constitution does
not prohibit the Stare trade, or eqjoin its pra-
hibitiOn.
The clause of the Constitution which relates
to this subject is as follows:
" Art. l, sec. 9-The migration or importa.
ton Of such persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not
be prohibited by the Congress prior to the
year one thousand eight hundred and eight;
but tax or duty may be imposed on such i'm.
pOrtatiOn, not exceeding ten dollars for each
person
This clause enjoins Congress to tolerate the
slave trade for twenty years. but it gives no
hint that after that period the trade should be
abolished. The implication is, simply, that
without such a restrictive clause, the majority
of the nation would demand the instant aboli.
ton of the nefarious traffic Virginia was
foremost in demanding it, and for much higher
Douglas. South Carolina and Georgia alone
stood out for it, and the clause was inserted for
their qualification. 1t is lamentably true that
the moral sense of New England, at that day,
was less alive to the enormity of the slave
trade than that of Virginia, as the debates in
the Convention clearly prove.
Mr.. Douglas lodges the question. No one
proposes to abrogate this clause OF the Consti.
tuition, which does not abolish the slave trade
But the proposition Of jefferson Davis, Senator
Brown, Stephens, and Yancey, is to repeal the
laws passed twenty years later by which the
slave trade is declared to be piracy, and pun
ished with death and coniiscaton The South
denies that this law is constitutional. 1t was
not devised, as Mr.. Douglas pretends by the
trainers Of the Constitution, as one of the
compromises " of that instrument With much
greater show of reason might it be insisted that
the bankrupt law Of 1911 was compromise
Of the Constitution. That law was made in
conformity with the clause of the Constitution
which authorizes Congress directly, and not by
implication, to pass uniform laws on the sub
ject Of bankruptcies throughout the United
States The law in question, though the only
one on the statute book was violently opposed
by Mr. Douglas, as We learn from his borra-
ply; and it seems never to have occurred TO
him, in opposing it, that he opposed the ConalI.
tuition. We apprehend that when the time ar
rives he will find as good reason for repeating
or amending the laws which punish the slave
trade as piracy, as he may safely do without
any risk of perjury. Mr. Douglas must there
fore write another letter.