The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-08-31
The Enthusiastically of the Federal
Acts Prohibiting the Slave Trade.


Acts Prohibiting the Slave Trade.
The following unanswerable arguments on
this subject, are from late speech Of Col. L.
T. Wigfall, Of Texas. We appeal to our rea-
ders of all parties to give them calm and i'm
partial hearing. Let them lay aside precon-
ceived opinions and weigh all the facts with
impartial minds. We presume that TRUTH is
the great aim Of every patriotic citizen, and it
is only in this way that it can be reached:
Slavery may or may not be great evil.
hut until it can be shown that the Federal
Government has jurisdiction over it, it is for
hidden ground for Federal footsteps. 1t is a
matter Of State welfare, with which the States
alone can deal. The premises being granted,
am answered that the first clause Of the ninth
section of the first article conveys the power:
sThe migration, or importation OF such per-
sons" etc, Hshall not be prohibited BY Con-
gress, prior to the year 1908" The language
Of the Constitution is free from ambiguity and
tautology. Migration and importation have
different meanings and apply to very different
classes of persons The freeman migrates
the slave is imported. VIII any one contend
that Congress can now, under this clause, pro-
hibit the migration Of the European to our
shores, who seeks them in quest OF liberty
Even Know Nothingsm never went thus far;
yet the power is the same as to both. Is the
Democracy, ere the smoke OF battle has yet
cleared from the field, to disarm, and after
driving the enemy from the out-posts, surren-
der the citadel 1t is but yesterday that in
tensfied Americanism warred on the right Of
naturalized citizens, under the plea Of extend
ing the time OF naturalization. Shall we who
held the shield of the Constitution over those
rights, invite another attack, by admitting
that Congress has the power, not only to ex-
clude from the ballot-box, but from the coun-
try the brothers. the fathers, and the sons Of,
the very men who stood shoulder 70 shoulder
with us in that great Constitutional battle p
But waiving this, what is the true construc-
ton of this clause, according to the Demo
cratic Tule Of construction 1t must be re-
membered that though the debates of the con-
vention are conclusive, as to the opinions Of
the members of the convention that drafted
the Constitution, they arenot equally 50 as to
the understanding of the States that ratified
it. When the Constitution was submitted to
the different States there was great diversity
of opinion as to the true meaning OF it. There
was an especial apprehension that, by con-
struction, powers would be assumed which
were never delegated, nor intended to be del
cgated, and that in time the Federal Republic,
established by the Constitution, would be con-
verted into a consolidated despotism. To
avoid this evil, and guard against all possible
danger the tenth amendment was rccommen-
ded at the time of the ratification, and was
subsequently adopted and made part of the
Constitution Since then it has been the au-
thoritative, Constitutional rule Of construction
1t declares 'that the pbwers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people."--
Where, ask, is the delegation of power to
prohibit the migration of white men, or the
of black ones, after the year 1908?
Certainly not in the clause quoted. That
prohibits Congress from prohibiting before
1908; but it goes no further. If the clause
were anywhere else than precisely in the place
where it is, there might be some plausibility
in the argument. An individual can do as he
pleases unless restrained. When he is res
trained for specified time, the presumption
arises that, at the expiration of the time, he
may do the act. This mode of reasoning is
called by logicians, the negative pregnant
This reasoning applies to constru-
ing State Constitutions. Before the tenth
amendment was adopted, it might have ap-
piled to the Federal Constitution Those who
drafted it might have supposed the power YES
ted after 1908. But when the States, the
parties between whom the Constitution was
binding, declared that no power should be as
sumed, and all powers not delegated were re-
served, what becomes of this negative preg-
nant' mode of reasoning? IL falls to the
ground. The clause simply prohibits the pro-
hibition before 1908. and makes no provision
after that time. Article five prohibits the
States from conveying the power before 1908
The tenth amendment declares that, till the
power is delegated it shall not be used. The
conclusion draw is, that the States determin-
ed TO keep open the slave trade till 1908, and
that after that time, if they desired it closed,
they would delegate the power, and that till
the power was delegated, the Federal Govern
ment had no jurisdiction, unless it can be de-
rived from the power ito regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian tribes" (third
clause Of the eighth section of the first article)
Have they the power under this The
erpTcssio a7liUs is the ercl $40 alterius.-
There being provision expressly ON the sub
iect Of the slave trade, jurisdiction over the
subject cannot be inferred from general pro-
vision as to another matter, though, without
the special provision, it might have been in
cluded in it, Then, again, 10 regulate is not
to destroy. Can Congress prevent the tea, or
coffee, or sugar trade If it can prohibit one
branch Of trade il can all. 1t becomes a mere
matter of Legislative discretion. Such con-
struction will hardly be contended for by
Democrat, It is known it was proposed in
the convention to vest in Congress the power
Of prohibition, and it was refused. The latter
part of the first clause of the eighth section Of
the first article was in these words But all
duties, prohibitions, imposts, and excises,
shall be uniform throughout the United
States'' The word prohibitions was strick-
en- out.
But il, under the power to regulate COM
merce with foreign nations" Congress can
suppress the slave trade, does it not follow
that it has the same control over the trade
"among the several States ?" / see no way
of admitting the power with foreign nations
and denying it "among the several States."-
Are we prepared to go that far? But the
Supreme Court Of the United States has de-
MED that Congress has control over the slave
trade among the several States" Must
they not, whenever the question is made, ap-
ply the same rule to the trade with foreign
nations p
But it is said that under the power to pun
ish piracy, the Government, by defining the
slave trade to be piracy, may prohibit it The
vice OF this argument is, that the slave trade
is not piracy, and cannot be made so, by the
process Of definition. The term piracy has a
definite technical meaning. 1t is robbery on
the high seas. The ingredients of robbery are,
an assault, putting in fear, and actual taking
possession Of the property of another-the
amino ytaRdRdi is the main Ingredient South
ern men will hardly deny, in this day and
generation that man can hold property in man.
With what propriety of language can the mere
Of property from the coast Of
Africa to the United States be called robbery?
Greater violence would not be done to the
meaning of words, if the transportation Of
cotton from Galveston to Liverpool were @de-
fined" to be robbery. The absurdity would
not have been greater, had Congress defined
the slave trade to have been treason, or coun-
terfeiting the securities and current coin OF the
United States
Quack Nostrums.