Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

generous mind, and every friend of human nature; but we often wish for things which are not attainable. It was the wish of a great majority of the convention to put an end to the trade immediately; but the States of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it. Consider, then, what would be the difference between our present situation in this respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will be if we do agree to it. If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the evil? No, sir, we do not. For, if the Constitution be not adopted, it will be in the power of every State to continue it forever. They may or they may not abolish it, at their discretion. But, if we adopt the Constitution, the trade must cease after twenty years, if congress declare so, whether particular States please so or not: surely, then, we gain by it. This was the utmost that could be obtained. I heartily wish more could have been done. But, as it is, this government is nobly distinguished above others by that very provision. Where is there another country where such a restriction prevails? We therefore, sir, set an example of humanity, by providing for the abolition of this inhuman traffic, though at a distant period. I hope, therefore, this part of the Constitution will not be condemned because it has not stipulated for what was impracticable to obtain.”1

Mr. Spraight further explained the clause :

"That the limitation of this trade for the term of twenty years was a compromise between the Eastern and Southern States. South Carolina and Georgia wished to extend the time. The Eastern States insisted on the entire abolition of the trade. That the State of North Carolina had not passed a law prohibiting the

'Elliot's Reports, vol. iii. p. 97.

importation of slaves, and therefore its delegates in the convention did not think themselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it."1

"Mr. Iredell added to what he had said before, that the States of South Carolina and Georgia had lost a great many slaves during the war, and that they wished to supply the loss."" 2

Mr. Galloway said "The explanation given to this clause does not satisfy my mind. I wish to see this ABOMINABLE TRADE put an end to. But, in case it be thought proper to continue this abominable traffic for twenty years, yet I do not wish to see the tax on the importation extended to all persons whatsoever. Our situation is different from the people to the North. We want citizens; they do not. Instead of laying a tax, we ought to give a bounty, to encourage foreigners to come among us. With respect to the abolition of slavery, it requires the utmost consideration. The property of the Southern States consists principally in slaves. If they mean to do away with slavery, this property will be destroyed. I apprehend it means to bring forward manumission. If we must manumit our slaves, what country shall we send them to? It is impossible for us to be happy if, after manumission, they are to stay among us.

99 3

"Mr. Iredell said the worthy gentleman has misunderstood this clause, which runs in the following words: 'Migration or importation 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 1808, but a tax, or duty, may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.' Now, sir, ob

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. iii. p. 97.
3 Idem, vol. iii. p. 98.

2 Idem, vol. iii. p. 98.

serve that the Eastern States, who long ago have abolished slavery, did not approve of the expression slaves; they therefore used another that answered the same purpose. The committee will observe the distinction between the two words migration and importation. The first part of the clause will extend to people who come into the country as free people, or are brought as slaves; but the last part extends to slaves only. The word migration refers to free persons, but the word importation refers to slaves, because free people cannot be said to be imported. The tax, therefore, is only to be laid on slaves who are imported, and not on free persons who migrate. I further beg leave to say the person is mistaken in another thing. He seems to say that this extends to the abolition of slavery. Is there any thing in this Constitution which says that congress shall have it in their power to abolish the slavery of those slaves who are now in the country? Is it not the plain meaning of it, that after twenty years they may prevent the importation of slaves? It does not extend to those now in the country. There is another circumstance to be observed there is no authority vested in congress to restrain the States, in the interval of twenty years, from doing what they please. If they wish If they wish to inhibit such importation, they may do so. Our next assembly may put an entire end to the importation of slaves." I

The rest of the 9th section, the reporter remarks, was read without any observations.

"Mr. Spencer said, I wish to have a bill of rights to secure those inalienable rights which are called by some respectable writers the residuum of human rights, which are never to be given up. At the same time that it

Elliot's Reports, vol. iii. p. 98.

would give security to individuals it would add to the general strength." 1

He objected, in this speech, to the powers of the Supreme Court, and to that clause which gives this court jurisdiction in cases of controversies between individuals of different States. On this subject he said,

"Nothing can be more oppressive than the cognizance with respect to controversies between citizens of different States. In all cases of appeal, those persons who are able to pay had better pay down in the first instance, though it be unjust, than to be at such a dreadful expense by going such a distance to the Supreme Federal Court." 2

He observed, some of the other "States had proposed amendments to this clause, and that he thought, by admitting this clause, it would render the country entirely unhappy" "inconsistent to the happiness of the people to admit these two clauses. The State courts are sufficient to decide the common controversies of the people, without distressing them by being carried to such far distant tribunals."

Mr. Spraight said, in answer, there was no disagreement in the convention respecting these two clauses he said the convention wished to separate as much as, possible the judiciaries of the States and of the general government, and "consult the ease and convenience of the people. The gentleman objects to the cognizance of all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. This objection is very astonishing. When any government is established,

'Elliot's Reports, vol. iii. p. 127.

2 Idem, vol. iii. p. 127.

it ought to have power to enforce its laws, or else it might as well have no power: what but that is the use of a judiciary? The gentleman, from his profession, must know that no government can exist without a judiciary to enforce its laws, by distinguishing the disobedient from the rest of the people, and imposing sanctions for securing the execution of the laws." 1

Mr. McDowall, speaking of the importance of having a jury trial secured to the people, and finding in civil cases it was not secured in the last resort, though in criminal cases it was, supposed a case of a man's going from Georgia to Philadelphia, there to have a suit tried, and then asked,—

“And can it be justly determined without the benefit of trial by jury? These are things which have justly alarmed the people. What made the people revolt from Great Britain? The trial by jury, that great safeguard of liberty, was taken away, and a stamp duty was laid upon them. This alarmed them, and led them to fear greater oppressions would take place." 2

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"The convention did not forget the trial by jury; the subject took up a considerable time to investigate it. It was impossible to make one uniform regulation for all the States, or that would include all cases where it would be necessary. It would be impossible for one expression to embrace the whole. There are a number of equity and maritime cases in some of the States, in which jury trials are not used. Had the convention said that all cases should be tried by a jury, equity and maritime 2 Idem, vol. iii. p. 131.

Elliot's Reports, vol. iii. p. 128.

« AnteriorContinuar »