Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1860-01-07
Letter rom hon. Edwin N. Ewing.


Hon.A Garnthers, 10 which you called my
attention, upon The constitutiona.ity of the
law to expel Free Negroes" from the State.
For the opinions of Judge Carnthers have
high respect, and for himself high respect
and strong personal regard; still do not see
sufficient cause in his argument TO change
my opinion az heretofore expressed to you.
Though Judge Caruthers does not express
ly admit that the State, by manumission of
slaves, granted them the privilege of resi-
dence. vet he admits that it did grant them
the privilege of self-eontrol, and that this
right would be abridged by law for their
exile. He insists however that this abridg-
ment of right does not impair It's exercise
| within the meaning of the Constitution, and
gives us as an illustration the case of Bank
ing as a right that every citizen wonld have,
unless abridged or taken away by the Legis-
1ature, and contends that law abridging or
taking away the right of Banking from all
would be Constitutional. He does not in
sist, at least in his present argument, that the
right of self-conrol could be taken away en-
tiieIy from the freed man. Now, according
10 the admission, freedmen have the right of
self-coBirol granted by the State. This in
cludes the right of choice OF residence, If the
right of selfcontrol be complete. But the
right of choice of residence cannot by. the
grant extend beyond the limits of the State,
! because grants OF the State are subject to the
rule clatIda,atur terrdorio. Then, this right of
sclfcontrol including the right OF residence.
is wholly taken away by law of expulsion;
for the moment one of these freedmen sets
his foot in another territory, he may be ex-
PEELED or enslaved if the authorities SO choose,
ss they have made no contract with him, and
be has no rights there. Now, if man hiss
not night to live anywhere, and for the very
fact of living anywhere may be deprived oil
his liberty, does he possess the power of self
control TO any extent whatever? Is he not
altogether subjugated to the will of Others
which contradicts the idea of seltcontrol?
His abstract, staTk-naked tight Of self-control
must be exercised somew here else than on the
solid Earth-in some new Limbo of Vanity
But is the act of Emancipation correctly
represented in the argument of the Judge !?
1t is the master who takes off the shackie and
gives the negro self-conu oI-the State says
it may be exercised here. This last is all
thar the State grants; exile then takes away
the whole of the grant of the State; what re-
mains is the grant of the master.
Again, can the Legislature abridge per-
feet right of which party is in the use and
possession? OF freeman-a citizen-suc
1.
ton. They are vested rights. But there are
other rights-impcrfect rights which exist,
subject to the control of the State. If a
| charter has been granted for Bank and ac-
cepted and is used, the Legislature cannot
take away or abridge this use. It's a grant.
vested right On the other hand, without
any law to the contrary, any citizen may
Bank; bat the Legislature may prohibit bank
| ing to all, if there be no grant, for no one is
| clothed with the right.
Cases for compensation need not he alluded
| to, as no compensation is TO be made or eaa
| be made in the case now under discussion.
Whatever is given cannot be taken away
| at the pleasure of the dOnor. Ii so, il is no
| gift at all. If there be reservation at the
time of the gift. the giver may act upon this
reservation, but upon this only. Now. in all
the Acts of the Assembly previous to the
| Act of 1881, chap. l02- the right of the freed
man TO remain in the State is expressly re-
cognized, and the assent OF the State is given
to this-indeed the intervention of the State
would have been wholly unnecessary but for
this very purpose. The master could at all
times, and can now, free his slave without the
assent of the State, provided he sends him
forthwith out Of it. This position has been
recognized as correct by the Supreme Court
| in many decisions. How does the matter
stand then? The master frees his slave; the
| State agrees with the master that the freed
man may reside in the State without reser-
walton (the master taking care that he does
not become a county CHARGE; and this agree
ment with the master at The instant of Eman-
cipation is a grant 10 the freed man. The
frced-m enters into the possession and en-
| joymeBt of his right. Can this be taken away
without violating the agreement with the
master and Withdrawing the grant to the
| freed man?-I say to the freeman because the
right is accepted aud used after the act OF
Emancipation.
Is the right Of residence granted and ac-
cepted and used, however, vested right, no
matter whether by freeman or freedman!
Suppose there were no specific provisions in
the Constitution in favor of freemen ard
citizens, could the Legislature exile all the
citizens Of the Sta c? Could it exile all the
Germans or irish? Is there not something
substantial in the right of residence which
makes it vested right : Take the case OF a
German invited here or admitted here and
promised the right TO reside without reserva-
tion Relying and acting upon this promise
he marries L native, has children born upon
the oil-hopes-aspiratiou are iuteriwined
with the Stale aud lis population, can the
State say To him, go elsewhere and enjoy
yourself? Is not bis right of residence the
base aud cornerstone of all the other rights
and relations that have grown up around
him. Is he not clothed with this right as n
garment! Is he not protected by il as with a
shield! Is it not an entity; IL is the very
soul Of all his other rights, which, without this
would be disjointed limts-a lifeless body,
could forfeiture of his property and his
| liberty b. made a consequence of his refusal
to obey the Ja,1raa of the Legislature making
/ il a crime to remain on the spot to which be
had been invited. and upon which he had a
/ promise OF remaining IN PerpstUO.
/ In the ca re Of the freedman there Is moi
only the general grant of right OF residence.
but every act oil emancipation assented 10
Iy the Stats Is a specific contract for thai
| purpose. II will be admitted that the Legs
/ laIure could not directly take from n free
man the right 10 reside upon land which be
bought with his money. Can this right b
Indirectly taken away By assuming larger