Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

made? No such distinction can be pointed out, and, as we have seen by the amendments to the Constitution, none was meant to be pointed out. By the word "person" was meant all individuals, of whatever clime, nation, or sex, whose home was within the borders of the United States. The shield of protection was to be thrown over all. Hence, we think the Hon. John Q. Adams has been at fault in saying he should not vote for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, unless there was a majority of that District in favor of its abolition, not counting those among the colored population who would have been in favor of it. This population he has entirely overlooked; he has counted them as naught, as persons who were not to be consulted, as those who had no interest in the matter. Has he not done wrong in so doing? We shall leave him to answer for himself.

In the case of Calder and wife vs. Bull and wife, speaking of the object and aim of men in entering into the social state, and the powers of the legislatures to enact laws for the government of society, the court speaks with great plainness; and, if their doctrines were carried into force, it would be impossible for one man to hold another in bondage. They show that it is not in the power of the legislature, "in our free republican governments," "to authorize manifest injustice by positive law, or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof government was established." Language

cannot be plainer; and, if the present court hold to the same doctrines, we have but to bring the case of a slave before its tribunal, and the obnoxious, the abhorrent system at once tumbles to the ground. Like the baseless fabric of a dream, it has no support. On opening the eyes, the vision is gone, the whip and the chains vanish, and man, the slave, stands erect before his fellow-men and his Maker, in all the conscious dignity of freedom, subject only to the rule of right, and to that moral responsibility to which God subjects all his rational

creatures.

We think nothing can be more to our purpose than the expressions here made by the court, and they prove what we have in these pages designed to prove. They restore man to his rights, by the rules of our government, however much. either individuals or States may have endeavored to overthrow them. The court says,

"The nature and end of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free, republican governments,--that no man shall be compelled to do what the laws do not require, nor refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the federal or State legislatures cannot do without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power: as, to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty or private property, for the protection whereof the government was established. An act of the legislature, for I cannot call

it a law, contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of the legislative authority. The obligation of law, in governments established on express compact and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean: a law that punishes a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawful private contracts of citizens; A LAW THAT MAKES A MAN A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CAUSE; or a law that takes property from A, and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers; AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THEY HAVE DONE IT. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State governments amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation, and the general principles of law forbid them.

"The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes, and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may commend what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt, or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent, lawful, private contract, or the right of private property. To maintain our federal or State legislatures possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free, republican governments."'

It might here be asked, could Judge Chase use the above language without having in his mind the situation of the colored man? Must he not,

1 Marshall on the Constitution, p. 507.

at the time he delivered this opinion, have been aware of its bearing on the case of a slave? We can hardly conceive it possible it should be otherwise; and yet it may be: we have no proof he had, or that his thoughts were otherwise occupied than with the case before him. But the doctrines are broad and comprehensive, and yet simple. It is but saying a legislature, at least one of the legislatures, of this Union, may legislate for the good and welfare of the individuals of the State; but they cannot pass laws, either of an immoral character, and professedly to the injury of any of its citizens, or make a man a judge in his own cause ; —and what is a slaveholder but a judge in his own cause? These, he says, are altogether contrary to the genius of our government. Can we ask any thing more?

CHAPTER XVI.

CONCLUSION.

We have now ended our quotations to prove the doctrine we have advanced, -that the Constitution does not nor cannot guarantee slavery; and, so far as public documents show-and these are the ones on which alone we should rely to elucidate the subject-we cannot but come to the conclusion they all prove there could have been no compact, there was no general understanding, it should be continued; but, on the contrary, from all the authority we can glean from the history of the times, the whole system was, for the most part, execrated as a foul blot on the history of man; that it was the main design of our fathers, in coming to this country, to establish a community where impartial laws should be administered, where every person should enjoy his individual rights unmolested by others; that, after many hardships and trials, and many attempts made to overcome their love of freedom, they did succeed in overthrowing a foreign attempt to enslave them, and then established, as they thought and intended, a government in a great measure agreeably to their wishes, when they thought, if every one did not then, they soon would, enjoy

« AnteriorContinuar »