t to be decided by the law as it is, and not as it ought to be.
Slavery is sanctioned by the laws of this State, and the right to hold
slaves under our municipal regulations is unquestionable. But we view
this as a right existing by positive law of a municipal character,
without foundation in the law of nature, or the unwritten and common
law."

I will now consider the relation which the Federal Government bears to
slavery in the States:

Slavery is emphatically a State institution. In the ninth section of
the first article of the Constitution, it is provided "that the
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."

In the Convention, it was proposed by a committee of eleven to limit
the importation of slaves to the year 1800, when Mr. Pinckney moved to
extend the time to the year 1808. This motion was carried--New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia, voting in the affirmative; and New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia, in the negative. In opposition to the
motion, Mr. Madison said: "Twenty years will produce all the mischief
that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves; so long a
term will be more dishonorable to the American character than to say
nothing about it in the Constitution." (Madison Papers.)

The provision in regard to the slave trade shows clearly that Congress
considered slavery a State institution, to be continued and regulated
by its individual sovereignty; and to conciliate that interest, the
slave trade was continued twenty years, not as a general measure, but
for the "benefit of such States as shall think proper to encourage
it."

In the case of Groves _v._ Slaughter, (15 Peters, 449; 14 Curtis,
137,) Messrs. Clay and Webster contended that, under the commercial
power, Congress had a right to regulate the slave trade among the
several States; but the court held that Congress had no power to
interfere with slavery as it exists in the States, or to regulate what
is called the slave trade among them. If this trade were subject to
the commercial power, it would follow that Congress could abolish or
establish slavery in every State of the Union.

The only connection which the Federal Government holds with slaves i