Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-04-23

SuFuf " uuu fDusfCC Us so HiOFlttFOuS mat Eli
the world would. ,riihout hesitation, ani,e in
rejecting it," and such il must be before the
Court will feel justified in disregarding the
plain meaning of q clause.
Again; to justly him in calling upon our
Courts TO est, EN- such a construction bad,
he must show it TO be bad" 4. c. contrarv
to the general system Of our law. They can
not ''atiribuie criminaliiy where the law inn
putes none" Now the Ordinance Of 1887,
still in force, establishes Just this arrange-
m-nt for the Ncrhwes est Territory. Tic
Courts of such nation would no moro feel
entitled in such circumstances, TO call il bad.
than a Court in a slave State would refuse to
enforce a slave contract under the plea that
it was mineral.
the reader will observe that the question
is not now what he or we think wrong, but
what is so generally regarded as wrong and
mons;7ous by all mankind, or by the law that
tia Courts may ground their decisions on
such opinion.
Mr.. Spooner's other point is that:
"Held to service or labor" is no legal dss-
cTiplion of Slavery. Slavery has no neces-
sary reference to service or labor : il 10 pro-
perry in man."
This is originally r. D. Yields argument.
Anything from him observes the most res
pectful attention.
"Tds terms Of the Constitutions, say. Mar
shall, must be Undersiood IN that sense in
rhieh they V'ere universally received in Mis
country, Juhen The Constitution uus frar.ed."
A. Ctanch, 40.
To this well settled and reasonable prin-
ciple Mr.. Spooner assents.-p. 1874:
''rhe only question is, what was the mean
ing Of the Constitution, as a legal instru-
= u,apt urhnp - u,au c.,Y J.a,,., 80 anI ga
scented 10 the people and before it was adopted
by them :"
This, too, rs the rule by which we inter-
pref Shakespeare, or any writer--turning 10
the dictionaries IF his period to find the mea~
ming of the terms he uses.
Now, how was Slavery defined in 1873,
and Previous TO, and about that period p
We have seen how the nation itself DESERT
bed a slave in the Ordinance Of F787:
"a person from whom hJor and ssrriee is
la,yfuHy cI0imed."
mo negro child shall be Held in serritude,
&c. Notwithstanding the parent Of such child
was held in serpitude at the time of its BIRTH
&c.-Connecticut Emancipation Act. 1854.
ssSlayery is an obligation 70 latgr for tho
benefit Of a master, without the contract or
consent OF the serranf.-PaleYr 1885,
Obligation comes from the Latin word to-
bind or hold.
Hargrave. in his defense Of Somerset be-
fore Lord Mansfield, r77s, gives us j deini-
ton Of Slavery, which begins thus
"Slavery imports an obligation of perpe,u-
al service"
Grotius's definition is slis {:
"Slavery is an obligation to ,erre another
for life, in consideration Of being supplied
with the bare necessaries of life"
Ru;herfoFth, about 1870, defines il:
San obligation to be directed in all oaeTs
actions"
Johnson's Dictionary, 1855:
"Slave, one mancipated %(bound) TO 4 mus
ter"
Bailey's Dictionary, the best Of his day,
ediffon of 1882:
'Slave, a perpetual sereant a person in
the absolute power of a master."
Ash's Dictionary, l775:
''Slave, one sold to a master, one sold fs Ls-
bor."
The Constitution Of Vermont, abon. ,tso
same period, 1898, provides that;
"No male person ought to be holden BY
ia'c 10 serue any person as a servant, slave, or
apprentice"
Mr.. Spooner allows, p. 10, that "bouhd 10
service" and 'heh to service" are the same
thing. Now, bond,ndn (boundman) Is the
old and usual English word for slave and
bondage for Slavery. II is so used in the BIZ
BILE. We get slave from the Russian and,
kindred languages-riIiein from the French
and servant from the Latin serrus, a slave
Bondage and bondman are Saxon.
Again, as to ''serrice'' having no relation
to Slavery ; service, servant, and serritude, arc
all derived from the Latin word for slave,
~sERvus; and they have been always used to
designate Slavery. Joseph, who was bought
by three persons and paid for, was called a
seruant, so Of others.
: SO much for Mr.. Spooner's idea that in
t 1888, " service and labor" did not enter into
= the idea of Slavery.
Such, then, were the common, popular,
: philosophical, and legal descriptions of Sla-
very in 1888. | know that the law some
1 times uses the technical terms "chattel per-
sonal," TO describe a slave. But the makers
of the Constitution were not obliged to use
3 technical terms. In framing a popular instru-
f ment for the use of the whole people. they
naturally would avoid, and always have
: avoided, doing so where they could, and used
, instead the terms common in the DictIona-
ries and writers of the day. The above quo.
tatIonS snow tnat IN lfoo, "SeTvlce and Ia
boz" were thought TO make a part of Slave
~, and that slaves were usually, if not al
Trays, described as persons he'd, bound, ana
sud 70 service or labor. Beside, the provis.
t ion was meant to cover many States and on
ly the most universal definition would suf
fee. 1t would not do to describe them al
, ''chattels personals" that mightinclude Soutl
t Carolina, but Kentucky, and now Louisiani
. consider them real estate in such case, tn
term would not be broad enough. Agar
h had they been rallied, generally, propert
such a term would hardly have included II
i thousands in Rhode Island, conpec,icut al