FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122  
123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   >>  
y the man himself, before they can tax him? Clearly the United States are not bound to tax any one but the individual himself, or to hold any other person responsible for the tax. Any other principle would enable the state governments to defeat any tax of this kind levied by the United States. Yet a man's liability to be held personally responsible for the payment of a tax, levied upon himself by the government of the United States, is inconsistent with the idea that the government is bound to recognize him as not having the ownership of his own person. _Second._ "The congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." This power is held, by the supreme court of the United States, to be an exclusive one in the general government; and it obviously must be so, to be effectual--for if the states could also interfere to regulate it, the states could at pleasure defeat the regulations of congress. Congress, then, having the exclusive power of regulating this commerce, they only (if any body) can say who may, and who may not, carry it on; and probably even they have no power to discriminate arbitrarily between individuals.--But, in no event, have the _state_ governments any right to say who may, or who may not, carry on "commerce with foreign nations," or "among the several states," or "with the Indian tribes." Every individual--naturally competent to make contracts--whom the state laws declare to be a slave, probably has, and certainly may have, under the regulations of congress, as perfect a right to carry on "commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," as any other citizen of the United States can have--"any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Yet this right of carrying on commerce is a right entirely inconsistent with the idea of a man's being a slave. Again. It is a principle of law that the right of traffic is a natural right, and that all commerce (that is intrinsically innocent) is therefore lawful, except what is prohibited by positive legislation. Traffic with the slaves, either by people of foreign nations, or by people belonging to other states than the slaves, has never (so far as I know) been prohibited by congress, which is the only government, (if any,) that has power to prohibit it. Traffic with the slaves is therefore as lawful
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122  
123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   >>  



Top keywords:
commerce
 

states

 

States

 
United
 

government

 

congress

 

nations

 

foreign

 

slaves

 

tribes


Indian

 
regulations
 

individual

 
exclusive
 
lawful
 

prohibited

 

Traffic

 

people

 

person

 

governments


principle

 

levied

 

regulate

 

inconsistent

 

defeat

 
responsible
 

notwithstanding

 

carrying

 

contrary

 

citizen


liability

 

declare

 
recognize
 

traffic

 

perfect

 

constitution

 

intrinsically

 

belonging

 

prohibit

 

payment


innocent
 
legislation
 

positive

 

natural

 

naturally

 
effectual
 

Clearly

 
pleasure
 
interfere
 

general