Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-04-09

ner, why were they kept carefully separate
In that census! Why, in 1892, wore the
State numbers settled on the basis Of reckon
ing only three-ifths Of the slaves The
North he represents as ready 10 spurn any
allusion TO Slavery, and the South surely
would not willingly be shorn of her strength
unless 1t were so nominated in the bond"
II neither party wished it, how was such an
Interpretation foisted upon the text Again,
why did each rOter 90 10 the polls and elect
his candidate on that basisl Erery one Is
presumed 10 knoW the law: and hence, while
history tells us that every intelligent man
did actually know how the Representatives
were apportioned, the law presumes and
holds every voter bound to know the same
fact also, whether he did or not. In SO far,
then' as this clause is concerned, we have
brought home 10 Congress, and 10 eUery rofer
IN l7g2-ony four gears after the COnSfitt-
hon ,cas adopted-full and unequivocal know
ledge that they understood il as we ourselves
and the nation do now. Let, then, Mr..
Spooner explain this INTEL, c!ual impossible
ty, "for the instrument was plain, and the
people had common sense, and those two
facts cannot stand together consistently with
the Idea that there was any general or even
any considerable misunderstanding of its
meaning!"
If human ingenuity had been iasked TO
imagine a practicable method Of proving, af-
ter the lapse of half a century, how any pub
lie document was understood by the nation al
large, it could not have devised one more
complete and perfect than this.
The a may be said of the fugitive slave
clause. We know that from 1871, down
ward, cases were frequently occurring under
1t, in various parts Of the country yet no one
= ever denied till now, that the clause was
: meant 10 apply TO such cases. Even the
stout, old Vermont Judge, who asked, in
1907, for a bill OF sale from God Almighty
! before he would consider the proof " suffi
Gent" could not deny the meaning of the
: bond. Here, again, is one of those intel
l%ectual Representatives," of which Mr.. Spoon.
e er's view is fruitful.
| The reader will excuse us for OBTAINING
= him by an attempt 10 show that the pro-sla
: very clauses above quoted, were understood
as pro-slavery by the people. 1t is as mucl
waste of time as TO heap up proof that tn
sun shines, or that water will run down hill
d We very readily agree that there was
O prevailing opinion-which time has shown
s have been a mistaken one-that the abolilio
of the Slave Trade would ultimately put q
Hire 40 Siavery.lThere is no evidence of OF
.e general expectation that the CONSTITUTE,
n would have any influence otherwise in pr
"a ducing such a result. But if such had be,
l. the general idea, how far, in the mcantin'
they thought it right to tolerate it, is qui
another question. Pennsylvania, in her n
BILE statute, of 1850, proposed and achievt
an ultimate emancipation, but she guarantee
l. to the master, meanwhile, the right Of pr
perry in the slaves he then had. Gradua
iepn ,ras tbo osooJ Sc ,h,t low NJ ~ nr
dreamed of meddling with the master
hold over the slaves then living. Even ia
: defended compensation. If we place Oh
+ selves in their position, there is nothing tn;
u need surprise us in the thirteen States, (ele'
= en- of which still held slaves,) agreeing
base their representative system on SLAYER,
. to aid each other against slave insurrectioI
and return fugitives. They expected, pc
haps they wished, still, that Slavery woul
cease, but thought these measures not wron
in the meantime, and no hindrance TO i
ceasing. Time has shown they were mi
taken. But that mistake does not free the
children from the agreements made under i
foolish and wicked, as time has shown theI
IA to be, and none the less so because the IN;
kers may have thought them harmless an
o. right. Fire will consume, spite OF FOOLS
ly mems thinking that they may handle hC
re Goals and not be burnt. The only way the
= sons can free themselves is to disown the
u fathers act, the Constitution itself. The or
er " rath to such release is ouer the Constilr
re ton, trampling it under foot; not under i
in trying to evade its fair meaning.
The reader will observe that we have a
DIS along looked at the Constitution in the ligt
p of a statute or simple contract, and apple
Frs the technical rules usual in such cases. Tn
has been done because we arc willing to me,
he Mr.. Spooner on his own ground, and thin
use that even there, his argument has no sol
1n- footing. But in strict truth, the Constitute
- ought not so TO be viewed. Its character
he peculiar. 1t is not so much a statute as
re- great national event, and is to be interpret
rdl not by technical rules, but by liberal rel
pit renee TO the history of the times, the circuI
IDS stances which produced it, and the natior
ich objects it has in view. 1t was meant for /
icy hands of the statesman, not for the quibbll
in distinctions of the mere lawyer. AS such
wi has always been approached. If here
ion omit this view, it is not because we do I
OF sincerely entertain it, but solely in order
It's, follow our author, and taking his own pr
ere ciples for granted, to show him that the
a suit is just as much in our favor as it wol
VS. be on every other possible basis.
en- w. P