Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

"Mr. Boudinot observed, that he was well informed the tax or duty of ten dollars was provided instead of five per cent. ad valorem, and was so expressly understood by all the parties in the convention; that therefore it was the interest and duty of congress to impose this tax, or it would not be doing justice to the States, or equalizing the duties throughout the Union. If this was not done, merchants might bring their whole capital in this branch of trade, and save paying any duties whatever. Mr. Boudinot observed, that the gentleman had overlooked the prophecy of St. Peter, where he foretells, among other damnable heresies, 'Through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you."" [Memorial rejected.] 1

Without adverting here to any arguments used in this work on the general welfare, the interest the whole country has in suppressing insurrections and keeping the people in a state of peace and quietness, or the power of congress over the effective strength of the country in case of war, if Mr. Madison's and Mr. Gerry's assertions are correct in the foregoing proceedings and Mr. Madison was an actor in all of the various stages through which the Constitution passed, and who undoubtedly had as good an opportunity of knowing the feelings and sentiments of all who had taken an interest in having it adopted as any one, and whose opinions seem, in some measure, to have changed towards this point our second proposition, we think, is proved; namely, that the general government has power to abolish the system of slavery, if it should require its assistance so to do.

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. iv. p. 211.

CHAPTER XV.

ARGUMENTS DERIVED FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

We will now turn to some of the legal decisions made in the Supreme Court of the United States, and see if we can glean from them any views that would coincide with the opinion held forth in this work. In doing so, we are aware that, in many cases cited, the subject of slavery, or the relation the slave is said to hold to his master, may not have entered into the mind of the judge, or judges, who have decided in the several cases brought forward. Consequently, we shall assume the colored man has inalienable rights, as well as the white man; and if he is a man, he must be treated as such; and, therefore, whatever is true of one is true of the other, and the immunities granted to one is equally to be considered within the reach of the other. For, unless we admit the law of force that might makes right-and that the decisions of our courts are founded on this principle, we must put ALL men under the protection of the law; and as no distinction is any where acknowledged as dependent on the color of the skin, and the colored man has not admitted he is subject to any laws that may have been made in

violation of his rights, we must suppose the courts will not object, that the doctrines advanced that secure the rights of one class of men are broad enough to secure the rights of all. For we ask the question and we put it with all seriousness - if

A, B, and C can get together and make laws for D, E, and F, when D, E, and F do not acknowledge the supremacy that is sought to be obtained, what right has A, B, and C to make laws for D, E, and F, when the latter can take care of themselves as well as the former; or, even if they cannot so well as might be desired, if they are satisfied with their condition, and do not interfere with the rights of others, from whence does A, B, and C, or any one else, derive their authority to cause D, E, and F, against their will, to bow to their supremacy? Clearly they, nor any others, have the right, unless, when they come into society to enjoy its benefits, they, with the rest, submit to equal and impartial laws. Supposing, then, that the government of the United States was established for the purpose and as we have attempted in these pages to prove it was established - to give equal and impartial laws to all, whether white or black, bond or free, whether they live at the South, or reside at the North; that all and each come under the same laws, are to be treated alike ; and that there is to be no distinction, where no distinction is pointed out. The descendants of Africa are nowhere designated to be treated differently from the descendants of Europe: one fate, one destiny, so far as language expresses

[ocr errors]

thought, await on each and all that come within the borders of our country. But, without further comment, we will quote from the case Marbery vs. Madison.

In this case, Mr. Marbery asked for a mandamus to be issued against James Madison, for not giving him his commission when he had received an appointment from John Adams. The court decided, that, after he had received the appointment, and it was signed by the president, and the seal of the state was attached, he had a right to the office, and the court fortified the position they assumed on these grounds: among others they say,

"This brings us to the second inquiry, which is,-if he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy ?

"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britian, the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.

"In the third volume of his commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases by which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.

"In all other cases,' he says, 'it is a general and indispensable rule, that, where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy by suit, or action of law, whenever that right is invaded.'

[ocr errors]

"And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he 'I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of the common law. And herein

says,

I shall, for the present, only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.'

"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for a vested legal right.

"If this obloquy is to be cast upon the jurisprudence of our country, it must arise from the peculiar character of the case." 1

Further on,

in the same case, he says,

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as in their opinion shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent." 2

It is certainly hoped Mr. Marshall, in the expressions "vested legal rights," and "the peculiar character of the case," meant not any peculiar character in the American Constitution, and that these ex

'Marshall on the Constitution, p. 24.

2 Idem, p. 161.

« AnteriorContinuar »