Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-04-30

"DoMEsTIC SLAVERY Is the MOST PRUMl-
NEWT FEATURE IN THE ARIsTOCRATIC COUNTY,
NANCE OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
Gouvsrneur Norris in The Convention If 1887.
Madison Papers.
With regard to the clauses giving the Ge-
neral Government "power to suppress insur-
rections," and guaranteeing the States so
gsinst domestic violence" the only ohjec-
tons Mr.. Spocner makes to their applying
to slave instructions is,
LIST. That the word ''insurrection," refers
TO rising against the id1Os, and as, in his opin-
ion, there are no valid slave laws, there can
be no slave instructions The discussion
of this point comes under our third head.
81. Mr.. Sp1oner says the Government Of
the States must be republican, and no repub-
lie can hold slaves-hence the above clauses
cannot apply TO slaves. This point, also,
Che meaning Of the word "republic,') we
shall consider in a moment.
Mr.. Spooner now passes to the considen-
ton of those ~clarses which he considers as
positively authorizing the Supreme Court 10
declare Slavery illegal, and the slave free
There is no dispute between us that Slavery
is illegal in the District of Columbia, and in
the Territories. Mr.. Spooner maintains fur
Their, that Slavery is illegal in the several
States, and that the Supreme Court has au-
thority to set the slaves there free. We shall
dispose of his points as briefly as possible.
LIST. He says the Constitution made citi-
gems of all the people of the United States
living in 1889. No citizen can be a slave
hence, the negroes, being citizens, are free.
We reply,-the Constitution did not make
citizens of ALL the people, &c. The Indians,
for instance, were people, residing and born
within the limits of the United States. That
the Constitution did not make them citizens
is very evident from the fact that they are
several times referred to in it, as an independ-
ent body, under the name of ''the Indian
tribes."-(See 5. Peters, ~ This shows
that we are to consult the other parts of the
Constitution TO discover in what sense to in
terpret the word people. This is not unusu-
al. The word commons" in England, is
sometimes used to designate the House Of
Commons, sometimes all persons not noble,
and sometimes those only who vote. The
question, who were made citizens in 1899, is
one of legal construction. 1t has been uni
versally decided that no one was then made
a citizen Of the United States, who was not
previously a citizen of one of the several
Slates.-See 7. VIII. SIS, g. 4 Johns. 75.)-
That 1t was not intended to include the slaves
under the phrase, people Of the United
Stgtes," or to make citizens of them, is evil
dent from the various slave clauses which
we have been considering. General terms
are always to be restrained by any specia!
clause in an instrument.-(Bacon's Adv.
Statute. Dwarris. 1869
Hence the general terms Of the Preamble
are to be restrained by the special pro-slave-
ry clauses. Indeed, according TO legal rules,
on which MIR. Spooner Processes to rely, the
Preamble is no part IF a statute, aud is not
to be taken into account except when it will
help to explain an ambiguity (hacon's
Adv. Statute. Kent |. 400. Dwarris.
We cannot leave this point without addu.
cling a specimen of the loose logic Of this
much-praised essay. Mr.. Spoonrr argues
opp. l0I-l3l) that because the Constitution
speaks Of %''natural born citizens" therefore,
all natives are citizens. Whether tho fact
be so or not, this phrase proves nothing Ell
Their way. The argument is sheer nonsense
One such a principle, when one speaks o
"English noblemen," he implies that all En-
glishmen are noble,-or of " Yankee ped
%lers," that every Yankee is a pedier,-or o.
natural born FOOLS" that all persons born il
the course of nature are fools! This is very
bad logic. Some fools may be born such
but this does not prove that all persons borl
in the course Of nature are fools. SO Of ''nat
ural born citizens !" some citizens may b
native and some not, but this does not sho>
that all natives are necessarily citizens.
the fact be SO, il must be proved in some 9th
CT way.
I'd. "Congress have the power to lay
capitation or poll-tax. Upon whom shall
be levied ! Is the Government under III
necessity of taking notice Of the fact of ST
very1" &c. &c.-(p. 9l.) To these que'
tons Mr.. Spooner answers mo-" and henC
concludes that a man, subject to such a pol
tax, cannot be a slave. We forbear to sa
that the premise and conclusion have no col
nection with each other-that answering Il
question either way proves nothing. 1t
enough to ask the reader to remember tn
''all direct taxes'' land such are poll-taXei
are to be levied on Stree persons, and tire
fhhs ofall other persons" The meaning Of tn
clause we think we have settled and henC
the Constitution itself determines what is
be done with poll-taxes when levied
slaves. 1t recognizes, in such case, the CO
dition Of slavery, and arranges for it.
We group together the seven next poin'
made by Mr.. Spooner. Referring to the E,
elusive power of Congress over C1mmert
the si-0fice, Patents, and the Militia al
to the States being forbidden to interfere wi
aAe obligation Of contracts he says slav
have, equally with other persons, unle
Congress forbid it, the right to trade, to tai
out patents, to receive letters, TO enlist,
make contracts, &c. &c. Hence as the Sta
laws which make them slaves, practical
forbid these things; they are unconstitutlo
al and void, and all persons held by the
ought to be set free.
We reply, that If We have made out to I
satisfaction Of the reader the true meant
-. J... - .h.u VI Aa1aI I'll
as the Constitution reco gnizos the existen
Of Slavery in the States, all these gene
provisions must be understood in a limit
sense, and Interpreted SO as to be conslstt