OCR Text |
Show 234 DF.SPOTTS!'ol legal authority to those who claim to b? ma~ters, ~ICY will ~urely look for it in vain in this article o( the ltcderal constitution. When the F ederal convention, in tne course of as labors, arrived at the clauses investing Cong_ress with the power to rcgul~te navigation a1!d foreign c,o1mmerce a new occasion for compromasc arose. l en ,tate.' out of the thirteen had already prohibited the importation of slaves from abroad, and if the Federal government were invested with unlimited control over the intercourse with foreign countries, it was plain enough that one of its first acts would be the prohibition of the African slave trade. For this Georgia and the Carolinas were not preJJart. d ; and the opinion was very warmly and confidently expressed by their delegates, that such an unlimited power conferred upon Congress would msurc in those states t he rejection of the constitution. To avoid this result, and to induce, also, the southernmost states to concede this power over commerce, to which in common with all the merely agricultural states, they had several other objections, a provision was inserted, "that the emigration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existin g shall think r .roper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress pnor to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Observe in this clause the same cautious phraseology as in that already discussed. As to the leg:al character or condition of the persons so to be ~dm1~· ted, nothing is said. There is not the slightest Implication that the constitution a ssented in a ny way that any of the persons so introduced into the states should be held in slavery. If that was done, it could only be on the responsibility of those who did it, and of the states that allowed it. The constitution did not aseCnt to it and by the power which it reserved to Conf$ res•,-ah t[Je p.9W~r which was possible under the IN •\1\IERICA. 235 ci;cumstanccs,-it secured ~he right, after the lapse of twenty years, of preventi_ng ~he possibility of such an o;currencc. But for th1s nght, thus reserved to t.hc l icderal. government, there is every reason to believe that Ill all the states south of Virginia the forc1gn s!~ve trade '~auld be now vigorously prosecuted. lhe conccsswn n;tade to GcorO'ia and t he Carolina!:! was temporary and limited· the point car-ried was of a permanent character. ' 'l'here still remains one other clause of the constitution relied upon as sanctioning slavery in the states. " No person held to service or labor in one state, '?ndcr the laws thereof, escaping jnto another, shall, II~ consequence of any law or regulation therein, be d1scharged from such service or labor; but shalt be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." It may be worth while to notice that in the article now under consideration, the . term service is employed- " no person held to s~rv1ce or labor; " whereas, according to the distinctiOn above q uotcd from Madison, the term servitude would have been the proper one, had the clause been expressly intended for t he case of refugee slaves. But, without dwelling on this distinctio_ n, it is. sufficient for our purpose to refer to the pomted difference between this and the apportionment clause, in the express reference which this ~lause make_s to law. Practice, usage, fact merely, JS not suffiCient, but la'v is required. "No person held to service or labor in one state, under tlte laws tlt~reof," &c. 'l'he question, then, whether this clause stipulates for the return of fugitive slaves, is entirely depcndc1~t on the previot1;s question whether there is any lawlul slav.ery in any of t he states-a question upon whiCh this clause expresses no opinion, and throws not the slightest }jg ht whatsoever. If t here be any such slavery, it mutit exist by virtue of state Jaws, laws complete and a uthoritative in themselves ; for whatever might have been the intention, or what- |