Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-07-17

war as it may declare, TO tax the people, and
to drift them No one but a sophist will
answer negatively. How then can We es-
cape the conclusion that however much its
members may protest against the action Of the
government, they are ~bound-legally bound,
to say nothing about the question of morals
TO stand by her when action is needed, wheth-
er she is in the right or in the wrong. Let
men beware then what power they confer
upon the government they establish. Let
them be cautious about investing them with
power, for the exercise of which they are un-
willing TO be responsible.
The editor of the Cleveland American asks,
elf it is the duty of every man TO sustain
his government in its acts, right or wrong,
what then becomes of the wholesome con-
sentative influence of an enlightened and JUS
tice-loving community"
If it is not their duty, what becomes of
your government? 1t has no longer an exist
ence. Each man does what seemeth best to
himself, and the doctrine that majorities should
rule, means only that majorities should rule
majorities. If every citizen is not bound to
sustain the government in all its constitutions
al actions, and its demonstrations ones iGo,
until a competent tribunal decides upon their
character, then one who believes in a Tariff
must pay duties upon the goods he imports,
while the advocate of free trade unloads his
goods without noticing the Custom House
officers. No Judge would be bound to pass
sentence upon the criminal in accordance with
the laws enacted by the majority, but would
graduate the penalty according to his indi-
vidual opinion, and leave the Sheriff or Tailor
at liberty to execute it according to his. De-
ny the right Of the majority to rule, and you
would not only have as now, majority and
minority reports from congressional commit
tees, but majority and minority Presidents,
and majority and minority officers in every
department, and the minority officers would
be multiplied to an indefinite number. We
will not here give an opinion as to whether
the doctrine that the majority should rule and
be sustained in its actions by the minority, is
sound or unsound our object is to present a
few of the results of its practical denial, and
urge upon all the duty Of withdrawal from a
government, which, contrary to the wishes of
a part of its citizens, uses the power with
which they have unfortunately, and perhaps
ignorantly invested it, in order to maintain a
war for the enlargement of the area of slavery.
Most men have made the sin of slavery an
exception to the application of the moral prin-
ciples by which they Judge all other sins, and
it has been a Herculean labor to even par
tally convince them of the truth of what they
are now beginning TO perceive; that its ma
ture and character nowise differ, except in de-
gree, from all other violations of Gods law,
and that it should be judged and condemned
as all other sins are judged and condemned.
The same difficulty exists in regard to the
great National Compact. The people regard
it as something above and beyond the rules
by which other contracts are judged, as some
thing too sacred for the principles of common
Interpretation. If instead of its being a con-
tract between two millions of citizens, it was
a contract between two or twenty of them,
there would be no difficulty in settling the
meaning Of the contracting parties. Take,
for instance, a manufacturing company of
twenty, and let their articles of agreement be
based upon the principle upon which the Ma
tional Company have based theirs-the right
of the majority to rule. One article in their
bond of partnership authorizes the majority to
buy such cotton as they think best, imposing
limitations only as to the quantity. The mi.
nority think it wrong to encourage foreign
labor, but the majority decide to purchase
East India cotton. In the event of such a
purchase, are not the minority bound TO fur
nish their proportion of the funds for the pay
ment of the cotton which the majority bought
per agreement True, they may declare its
purchase inexpedient, may denounce it as a
war upon American interests, but are they
not legally bound 10 open their purses and
pay for the same! No one will deny it; and
why a different principle should be applied
to the Mexican war which was undertaken
by the majority, in conformity with their ac-
knowledged right to rule, and is, so far as
we can judge, in accordance with the Nation
al Contract, we are unable to comprehend.
We agree with Cassius NJ. Clay, there
must either be an honorable, fair and sincere