Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-09-11

as ldugnt ny murray, Smith, kirkham, &c.,
1t appears that-No person held to service or
labor in one State, under the laws thereof, es-
Gaping into another = = = = shall be
dehpered up on claim of the party to whom
such services or labor may be duel
very satisfactory testimony, for the claim
ant 10 be sure! BY bringing his suit
into the Court of "SrRicr coSsfRucrroN,"
the claimant insists that tile Grammar and the
Lexicon, the dead-ietter of the record, how
ever subversive of equity, or of the meaning
intended by the trainers Of the instrument,
shall govern the decision to be made"
The reader will observe that Mr.. Goodell
creates for himself this opportunity of exhi-
biting a profound ignorance of grammar, by
emitting the word shut" before +" shall be de-
livered up" &c. The whole sentence reads
n person., &C., shall be discharged, &c.,
but shall be defrered up, &c. Now this form
OF expression is one of the most correct and
common in our language. Iii ellipticaI. and
requires the insertion of the word "he' be-
io:e SHALL" but he shall be delivered up"
&c. 1T occurs frequently in the Bible, which
bishop Lowth, in his Grammar, calls the
best authority in our language" Mr.. Good
els new grammar would make sad work
win the sacred pages. For instance-"No
man ever yet hated his own flesh. but nour-
lsheth and cherisheth it," &c.; that is, ac-
cording to our new grammarian, d" No man
ever nourisheth and cherishe,h his own
flesh ~
mo man cometh TO the Father but by
me-" that is, "No man coneth to The Father
by me"! Has Mr.. Goodell so Ear outgrown
his Yankee education as to have forgotten
The Assembfy's Shorter Catechism! w
read in that good old compend, that "No
mere man, since the fail, is able, in this life,
perfectly to keep the command men,s Of God.
pat doh daily break Them" &c. With what
horror would the Westminster divines Start
up from their graves of two centuries, could
they hear their degenerate son telling his
children that this meant, mo mere man doth
break the command ments Of GOd"!. We
suppose 1t takes an angel to DO That
we marvelled as we read this astounding
confession OF Ignorance, and were somewhat
relieved by a note of Mr.. G's, modestly at
trlbutlng the honor Of the discovery to Alvan
Stewart. The use of such an argument by
Nm. Goodell can only be explained on the
ground of what old Samuel Johnson called
"pure ignoranc," -its use by Mr.. Stewart
admits OF various explanations.
Dear reader, If | have made clear 10 you
the above specimen of bad grammar, rest as
sured that the law which follows is equally
bad. The sample is fair one.
The next page goes on to c.iticise the same
clause further. The clause speaks of ..per-
sons" now Southern slaves, Mr.. Goodell
says, are held as "chattels,'' .sthings'-
they cannot therefore he referred to. Alum
dant quotations are Of course added, in all
which the word ''chattel' figures in capitals.
The tub stands well for a few pages, then
Mr.. Goodell himself upsets it by a note on
another point, as follows:
81 do not forget that the enactmen,s Of the
slave States provide for the punishment of
the slaves as criminals. But ! contend that
those enactments are in fiat contradiction of
the code that holds them as goods and chafeA
PERSONAL"
This let's ont the secret. The staring CAP
ltals OF previous quotations had told the truth,
but not the tOh0e truth. Southern law views
the slave as "chattel," when it sells him,
and as a person,-when it hangs him. The
Constitution does the same, when it calls him
"G perSOn htd 10 seTpice or k7bOur." Suppose
it had called him a 'chattel'', some future
Goodell would have paraded pages Of laws
to prove that slaves were tried and hung as
'persons," and could not be the indiyid-
uals referred 10 by the Constitution when
it spoke of "chattels''. Our Constitution
avoids both the Goodell that is, and the
Goodela that is TO belt recognizes both
characters of the slave By a descript'el
of the only kind possible in the circumstan-
ces, and the perfection of which human inge-
nuity could hardly surpass. We all know
why the trainers were ashamed to use the
word (slave) which would have made a de-
scription unnecessary. To be sure, MS Mr..
Goodell declares, these Southern laws are
sin flat contradiction" to each other; but if
we have got TO wait for a meaning to our Ma
tional Constitution till some one ~reconcilcs
the Inconsistencies of Southern laws we shall
be like the clown, in the fable, who was
waiting for the river TO run away.
Mr.. Goodell goes on to ~criticise the word
''due," in the same clause. He saws: "The
slave can make no contract. and hence moth
ing can be 'due' from him !" sHis master
cannot sue him at law nor can law enforce
the payment" "Nothing can be legally
due from a slave" In general, Mr.. Good
ell is fond of referring to Webster's dictiona-
ry, TO clinch all his reasonings on this strict
construction basis. As due is no techni-
cal, no legal word, but one of general and
popular use, we might have supposed he
would have given us here his ~fdvorite author
ity-Hut oil this occasion the universal au-
thority, Or. Webster, is carefully eschewed.
Let us see, by opening the dictionary, whett-
er we find any special reason for this unwont-
ed neglect. DR.. Webster defines "due'' tn
be, LIST, that which one contracts to pay or
do, &c. Cd. that which office, ~ rank, So
cial relations, &c. require to be done. Sd.
that which td'O or custom requires, &c. So
we see it would not do to cite the tavorile
dictionary when the only ground relied on to
show THAI nothing eould be ''due" from a
slave was, that he could not make a contract
or be sued Of course, as Mr.. Goodell is a
consistent man, he thinks that when the
Psalmist tells us to "give unto the Lord the
glory due unto his name," he means the Clio.
ry we poor creatures have contracted to render
10 the Most High! and for which we could
be sued! When Paul commands Render
INTO all their dues, honour to whom honour,
fear to whom fear" &C., he refers to those
who have by regular deeds, signed, sealed,