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

=
with those other clauses-this is the u%niver.
sal rule.
Though it Is not necessary 10 20 further,
still We may remind the reader that State
laws fix the time at which persons shall be
deemed IF age that until that period a man
is debarred from most of the facilities Of ira
ding; II he takes out a patent it is not his,
but his fathers he cannot make contracts
except in special cases, Of necessity, &C.
In a word, the same disabilities, in most Of
these particulars, which State laws impose on
the slave, the same State laws impose on ev-
cry person under twenty-one years of age,
and every married woman. No one ever
thought Of contending that ia virtue of these
provisions in the Constitution, Congress had
a right TO set aside the State laws relating to
infancy and marriage; but it has the same
right 10 do SO as it would have to interfere
with slave laws on these accounts.
As for enlistment, we presume Congress
would have a constitutions right to disregard
infancy, at least 10 some extent. Public ne
cessity ~justiies it. And the same public ne
cossity would justify their enlisting slaves,
without engaging to compensate their mas
tiers. But this no more proves that, ordina-
riIy, the master has not The legal right 10 the
service of his slaves, than the same power
over minors proves that parents, because they
may be enlisted, have not ordinarily the right
to their earnings. The truth is, Mr.. Spoon
or perpetually forgets that the United States
Constitution has nothing to do with the mu-
nicipal rights or private relations Of men
all these are left to be regulated by the States.
They are to say who shall rofe, who shall
inheut property, who shall marry-who shall
make contracts, &c. &c.
estates shall make no law impairinr the
obligation of contracts" says the United
States Constitution. But a slave cannot
make contracts. Hence, says Mr.. Spooner,
any State law which makes a man a slave is
inconsistent with the above provision.
But marriage is a contract. Yet Massa-
chuSetts says, "no man shall marry his sis
ter" This is, in Mr.. Spooner's sense, him
derlng a man from making a contrdct-it is
so .Jar preventing him from forming this con-
tract. But is there any one who supposes
that the law is inconsistent with the above
provision in the Constitution! Our space
torbids us TO enlarge, but any one may for
himself illustrate in various particulars. the
absurd consequences Of this position of Mr..
| Spooner's.
Sd. Mr.. Spooner quotes the second amend
ment--'slhe right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringrd and Art.
|. Sec. 9. as to habeas corpus.
We have SO recently and so much at
length, Gin our reply to Mr.. Gocdell.) shown
that these amendments, &c. do not restrain
the States, but only tie General Gorernmcnl
from the various things therein mentioned,
that we shall not enlarge, simply referring
the reader to the following cases where the
point is not only decided, but most indispuia-
big prOped, by Marshall, Z. Peters, 2l3 ,.
I (Na. OIO,p rNu,, roc y O. &
II. 22O. 8. Wendell s. 10. Wendell, 449.
These are, with one exception. cases in free
States, and none Of them had any connection
with the question of Slavery.
We were surprised that Mr.. Spooner al.
lowed this careless mistake to be perpetual.
ted in Il second edition.
4th. MIR. Spooner's last point is that the
"Uniied States shall g~uafauty to every STATE
a republican form Of government" &c.
Mr.. Spooner says, Up. 1863
alt is indispensable to a republican fora
Of government, that the public, the mass 0
the people, if not the entire people, p%arIici
pate in The gran! Of po1UsrS n The Government
and in the protection afforded by the Govern
ment. Ii is impossible, therefore, that a Go
f vernment, under which any considerabl,
number OF the people, (f indeed any nunbe
of the ~people.) are diJranchjSei aud ensla
t we'd, can be a republic. A slave Government
IS an Oligarchy and one too Of the most al
bitrary and criminal character"
, II this be his opinion, then we can onl
say that Mr.. Spooaer's idea of a republi
does not agree with that described in III
e Constitution itself! Which is TO have tn
y preference the reader will decide.
] 1t will certainly be allowed that the wor
l. Sgrnpublic ~ il pf n yary uarua character
Mr.. Jefferson (vol. 4. 275) allowed, in h
a day, that it had been applied 10 almost eve
it description OF Government, Holland. Geno
e Switzerland, Venice, Poland, &c. MadisC
a. (Federalist No. 39.) conlesses that ii We r
s. fer TO usage, no a hJactory defnition can
,e given. And where but to usage are we
l. refer to find the meaning of wordsl 1t is
such Il chameleon test as this, a word
n which no satisfactory definition could be fouI
ne IN 1888, that Mr.. Spooner proposes to deci
IS the character of the Constitution and the =
at tent OF the powers of the Supreme Court /!
Mr.. Spooner decides that no State can
e. a republic unless a" the mass of the peopl
at II not the entire people, participate in I
20 grant OF the powers to the Government"
to Now 1t happens that the Constitution dire
that ''the electors of Congress, in each Sta
n shall have the qualifications requisite for elC
tors of the most numerous branch of the ST;
Is Legislature" thereby distinctly and erpres
X recognizing the right of each Stale to dete
e, mine hOt0 many of its citizens shall vol
so that 49, shall participate in The grant IF po,t
til TO Government.
es Hence if the States choose las all Stat
IS always have done) to let only half Of d
Ike " ENTIRE PEOPLE" Ito wit, the mem va
TO they are allowed TO, do so-if they choose
lie go further, and allow one-half Of the u,
ly (that is. only those above twenty-one yea
n old) to vote. they may land thus base I
IN powers of Government not as Mr.. Spoon
requires, on the 'entire people, but on q
he quarter of them all this the Constitution
NO cognizes! THIS Mr.. Spooner tells us is
consistent with his idea of republic. If
ce we can only reply that the Constitution
A. II-..-l- So - L II