Year: 1859

For the Mississigpian.


The Unconstitutionality Of the Federal


Laws Prohibiting the Slave Trade
| Testimony Of Luther Martin.


EDITOR OF THE MIssIssrPPIAN:-The un-
constitutionality of the laws of Congress,
against the African slave trade, has heen so
clearly and ably demonstrated, that many
who are opposed te the trade, admit that Con-
gress has no constitutional power to prohibit
it. Nevertheless they assume the position,
that it was the design of the federal Conven-
ton to delegate that power under the 9th sec
ton Of the LIST article, after the year 18O8.-
1t is to this view of the subject, that wish
to make few brief remarks, showing that the
convention designed no such thing.


All men of ordinary intelligence know that
it is unsafe to rely upon the speeches made in
in deliberative body to arrive at the ulti-
mate design Of that body. Many men make
long and labored efforts and finally vote
against their own arguments. Many inter-
vening circumstances arise which may change
the whole features of the subject under con-
sideration.


1t does seem to me, that no man Of sound
mind and clear perception, free of prejudice,
can peruse the secret proceedings of the con-
yention, without arriving at the conclusion,
that no man or set Of men in that body ''ob-
tanned what they sought for;" but on the con-
trary, that the constitution of the United
States was the result Of conflicting opinions
worked out with fear and trembling" And
little did the convention know or believe, that
they had been instrumental in forming the
best system for confederacy of States, if hon
estly observed, that the world ever saw.


But let US see the ultimate design of the
convention, 50 far as they had any, on the SUBJ
ject Of the slave trade. To cut this article
short, l shall introduce but one witness; and
until his testimony is impeached or Iebutted,
it will be ample for all candid men. / now
propose to examine Luther Martin, who was
Attorney General of Maryland and member
of the federal convention. He says "The de-
sign Of this clause is to prevent the general
government from prohibiting the importation
of slaves" viewed by the convention as in
favor of slavery instead of against it


In voting on the report of the committee of
detail the convention manifested disposition
against the slave trade; but they were told by
the delegates from South Carolina and Geor-
ga shat their States would never agree to
system which put it in the power of the gen.
eral government to prevent the importation of
slaves" Consequently "a committee of one
member from each State was chosen by ballot
to take this part of the system under their
consideration and to endeavor to agree upon
some report which would reconcile those
States.


"To this committee was also referred the
following proposition, which had been report
ed to the committee of detail, to-wit No
navigation act shall be passed without the as
sent of two-thirds of the members present
in each House. a proposition which the sta
pie and commercial States were soIicitous to
retain, lest their commerce should be placed
too much under the power of the eastern
States, but which these last States were as
anxious to reject. This committee, of which
also had the honor to be member, met and
took under their consideration the subjects
committed to them / found the eastern
States, Notwithstanding their aversion to slave
ry, were Ve,y a0illinJ to indulge the South
ern States at least with a, temporary liberty
to prosecute the slave trade (modern piracy
provided the Southern States, would in their
turn, crafty them by laying no restriction
upon navigation acts; and after very little
time the committee, by great majority,
agreed on report by which the general gov
ernment was to be prohibited from preventing
the importation of slaves for limited time,
and the restrictive clause relative to the nayi-
cation acts was to be omitted"


Now let US see the motive of introducing |
this prohibitory clause on the power of Con-
gress, in which the Eastern State ''were very |
willing to indulge the southern States, provided |
the Southern States would crafty them on
the navigation acts" No map in the conven-
ton viewed this prohibitory clause on the
power of Congress as delegatng power to Con-
gress. That shrewd discovery was left for /
an after age. But it was contended by q por-
tion of the convention that Congress would |
have power over the subject Of the slave
trade under the clause to regulate commerce.
And it was an anxious precaution against this
view of the subject that caused the friends of
the trade to demand prohibitory clause on
the power Of Congress, in which ''the East
ern States were very willing to indulge the
Southern States"


Will any man now contend that Congress
has the power to prohibit the slave trade un-
der the power to regulate commerce? Hso, it
is as clear as monday that Congress can pro-
hibit any other trade they may think proper.
But how did our witness view it /? He was
a member of the convention also of the COM
mittee, heard all the arguments forand against |
it, was opposed to the slave trade, and in "a
vor of delegating to Congress the power to
prohibit it--he was the Attorney General of
Maryland and presume as competent to
judge as the men of these latter days-in his
communication to the Legislature of Mary
land, addressed to the Speaker of the House,
in conclusion of this subject, he says: "You
will perceive, sir, not only that the general
government is prohibited from interfering in
the slave trade before the year 1908, but that
there is no provision in the Constitution that
it shall afterwards be prohibited nor any Sc
curity that such prohibition will ever take
place."


Little did the Eastern States think when
they "were very willing toindulge the South
ern States in the slave trade for a cor
benefit in the navigation acts'
that that trade, which, as all know, had been
practiced ever since the days of Abraham,
was piracy and deserved the punishment of
death!!! Little did our witness or any 9TH
er member of the federal Convention, think,
that they were sanctioning piratical operations
for the purpose of stocking the United States
with slayes!l II! Alas! Alas for the sad in
auences Of mystical wine Il! Modern Phar-
sees would blast the reputation of their FORE
athers and stain the aprons Of their mothers,
should it become necessary in carrying out
British philantophy.


A FARMER.


-ss----