Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1845-09-26


faithful administration of the government, a
carrying out of the principles of the Consti-
tuition would overthrow slavery. One word
as we pass, in regard to F." due process of
law" That may rightfully be regarded as
due process of law, which is according to
i1'c. Process of law is varied by the cir
cumstances of the case. A man who SWIM
dies you out of a thousand dollars cannot be
arrested without a warrant. The due pro-
cess of law by which he is deprived of lib
erty, is very different from that by which
you deprive of liberty the assassin who at
lacks your life, or the robber who is break
ing into your house. So in relation to the
child of a slave mother. The process of law
by which he is forever deprived of his legal
right to liberty is a much more summary one,
than that which bolts and bars the prison
door upon the offspring of a free woman
Besides, the Constitution does not assure the
citizens of the several states, that the loo; |
governments shall not deprive them of life
liberty, or property ''without due process of
law" but simply limits the power of the
general government in relation to this matter.
We have said the language of the Editor
is ambiguous, and we repeat it. He first
admits that the clause in relation to f~ugitives
from labor is applicable to the slave; then
asserts that he holds to a strict construction
of the Constitution g. maintains that every one
must c%onstrue it for himself; admits that the
law of '93 is an attempt to carry out the pro-
vision referred to, but contends that the de-
cision of the Supreme Court in the Prigg
case which declared that this provision of
the Constitution executes itself-that it need
ed no auxiliary law is not in accordance with
the principles of just Interpretation, and is
adverse to his view of the subject; and on
behalf of himself and those with whom he
stands politically connected, declares "as a
party, we question the soundness of that de-
%cision, and assume that it is not final
Had the decision been Favorable to his under
standing of the clause, and the slave claim
ant have said 'we question the soundness
of that decision, and assume that it is not
%fnal;" it is not unlikely he would have told
them what we now tell him:-"You agreed
to submit this, and all other Constitutions
questions to the arbitration of the Supreme
Court, promising to abide by its decision;
and you are bound to sustain and regard it as
final" The DR.. and his friends, perhaps
may, as did Granville Sharpe and other En-
glish abolitionists, bring public sentiment so
to bear upon the Judiciary, that its decision
shall be reversed, but until then, that dccis-
ion is the constitutional law of the land, and
as such they must sustain it, if they are true
to the obligations of citizenship. There is
h owever a wide Inference between the case
of Granville Sharpe in the English courts,
and Gamaliel Bailey in the American courts.
The Constitution of the British people is not
a contract between the individual subjects of
that government, which each and all of the
contracting parties is bound to maintain; the
Constitution of this country is such con-
tract. 1t was therefore perfectly right for
the British abolitionists to endeavor to COM
pOl l'ld GONOliiiliOlb lultlllull1 w tCob VIZ
practice of its subjects by the principles
which the few had declared should govern
their conduct toward the many; and it is as
clearly wrong for American abolitionists to
endeavor by a decision of the Supreme court
to alter the meaning of d contract, or to place
any other construction upon its language than
that which it was understood to convey by
the contracting parties at the time the agree
ment was made. A contract may not be vi
olated or impaired; if the contracting parties
consent to have it altered, it then becomes a
new contract. The L. S. Constitution being
a pro-slavery compact, lie who strives to
make it bear an anti-slavery construction, if
he knows what the trainers and adopters of
it designed it should be, acts in bad faith,
and is dishonest.
The assertion of the Herald that the Pres
ident and Congressman must determine their
official course by their W understanding of
the Constitution, is true in a very limited
sense. Those parts of it upon which there
has been, and can be no controversy, such
for instance, as that each state shall have
two, and but two Senators, every officer may
support as he understands it, for it can be
understood in but one way. But does DR..
Blily pratonl to say that The decisions of the
Supreme Court upon the parts submitted &c