Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-05-07

NANCE OF THE PROPOSED
OouvernHur Morris an the Convention Of 1887.
Madison Papers.
Having finished the consideration Of Mr..
Spooner's first two points, -namely, that the
people never intended to sanction Slavery,
and that even if they did, the Constitution,
legally interpreted, does not sanction tive
pass TO his third and last argument:
That there was no constitutional or Legal
Slavery existing in the States in 1889, 10
which the pro-slavery clauses, if there really
are any, in the United States Constitution,
could apply, or can now apply.
Ia attempting to sustain this position, he
argues as follows
Ist. The Colonial Charters did not author
lie the establishment Of Slavery here.
81. The English Statutes never recogni.
zed it.
Sd. IL il were tolerated here, the decision
nf Lord Mansfield, in the Somerset case,
l772, put an end TO its legal existence.
4th. The Colonial Statutes establishing il
were void, because they did not sufficiently
define the persons who were 10 be slaves.
5th. The Declaration Of Independence
abolished it.
9th. The Articles of Confederation do not
refer 10 il; and the State Constitutions of
1889 are either inconsistent with the exist
ence of any such institution, or wholly silent
about it.
We shall notice each Of these points in or
der, and as briefly as possible.
LIST. THE Colonial Charters did not au.
thorize the establishment of Slavery here"
MIR. Spooner says Up. 2l.):
Thn repar,l nroyiei,r, ~ ,Loea nL,,r,orc
as will he seen from the extracts given in the
note, were, that the laws Of the colonies
should not be repugnant or contrary, but, as
nearly as circumstances would allow, confor-
mable 10 the laws, statutes, and rights OF our
kingdom of England.
Slavery, he thinks, utterly inconsistent,
with the common law. which was adopted
throughout the colonies. 10 this point he
cites the following language Of the Supreme
Court, who, quoting the New Hampshire
Charter, remark upon II thus:
The charter of New Hampshire provided,
$50 always that the form of proceeding in
such cases, and the Judgment theIeupon tc
be given, be as consonlnt and agreeable to
the laws aud statutes of this our realm OF
England, as The present state and condition
of our subjects inhabiting within the limits
aforesaid, Ct. c. of the province,) and The cir
cumstances OF the place will admit" hide
pendent, however, OF such a provision, we
tike it TO be "a clear principle that the com
mon law in force at the e.nIgfItion OF our an
~cestors, is deamed the birtnrTht Of the colo
MES, unless SO far as it is applicable to their
situation, or repugnant to their ether rights
and privileges. II Jortiori tia principle APP
plies to a royal prOvince.-(9 Cfanch's UNI
ted States Reports, 1929
In reply to this, nothing more is necessa-
ry, than to point the reader to the q1ailllca-
TONS contained in the above extracts. The
laws are to be c~onformable to English law,
" as nearly as circumstances aHOlc," "as me
present state and condition IF our subjects. and
The eircum stances IF the place will Gdmi."-
The common law is adopted, "unleSs SO far
as it is inapphicabk 10 their sjtuatiOn," &c -
Now these exceptions are broad enough ''to
drive a coach and six through" as was sIid
of a famous English statute or as we once
heard Elihu BurrItt assert, "lf you make a
breach ia the golden rule, no matter how
small it be, He'll and all its legioDs can pass
through"
The Colonial Assemblies and the King
were to Judge how far, and when circum'
Stances and "their state and condition."
&c. &c. rendered it necessary to depart from
their English model. The only question i
one Of fact and history how far did they
find it necessary to do so, and what laws did
they enact in consequence II we open the
Statutes enacted by these colonies under theiI
Charters, and approved by the Kings, wht
granted the Charters, we shall find they al
iegalized The Slave Trade and Slavery. !
is too late now 10 say that such acts were no
warranted by their Charters. They were
the Judges whether, and how far, it was ne
1000 70 varv from EnUlish llNy and thaN
have declared, by their acts, that thoy judge(
it necessary. Their decision, when approx
ed by the King, is final. There is no appeal
As Mr.. Spooner does not deny that the Co
lonies tried TO make slave laws, and as suci
attempts are conclusive proof that they though
such laws "allowed by their state, condition
and circumstances" and that the common
law on this subject was "inapplicable," -
and further, as they are allowed by the Char
tiers to be the only and final judges of tn,
matter, we consider this point setlled-an,
the consistency Of slave laws with the Char
tiers made out.
ID The English Statutes never recognized
Slavery here.--(pp. "a, 259
Mr.. Spooner must be a Tory in disguise
or a tyro 10 law, to imagine that it was ne
cessary they should do so in order TO rende
the system legal. Has he read our histor.
so superfcially-has he omitted that some
what important q page of it, the Revolt
tionsry discussions Of l775, SO entirely, a
not TO know that, who should vote here, hoV
property should be divided and held, VIII.
should marry and how-in a word all ind
vidual rights, and relations, ard all matter
of ps6perty, were settled by Colonial laws an
eustoms-snd that this we claimed as ou
dearest birthrighti Aye, and fought for
seven yesrsf No matter. az TO this ques!lo
Of domestic slavery, wha, English laws said
the question Is, what did American law say
Every child knows this.