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

uu'J u eNeCute tne law as we nnu w., anu we
think it too firmly and clearly established to
admit of dispute"
II, therefore, Mr.. Spooner shall urge the
Supreme Court TO reject the plain meaning Of
any clause of the Constitution because that
meaning sanctions an unjust system, that
Court will naturally ask him whether the
general system of American law, at the time
the Constitution was made, looked upon that
system as unjust and illegall We say, at
the time the Constitution was made-for con-
tracts are to he held void or valid according
as they are illegal at the time they are made.
See Comyns Con. l. 3l-see Spooner's p.
l2l. On this principle will not the Courts
consistently decide that a pro-slavery mean
ing of the National Constitution cannot he
held immoral or inadmissible, since twelve
OF the thirteen States which made il, held
slaves at that time, and one-half of the nation
still continues so TO dol Or take the princi-
pie as Judge Marshall himself has laid il
down, A. Wheaton, 1879:
"lf in any case, the plain meaning of a
provision is TO be disregarded, because we
believe the trainers of the instrument could
MT intend what they say, 1t must be one in
which the absurdiiy and injustice of applying
the provision to the case, would be so mon
strous that all mankind would, Without hcsiia-
lion, unite in rejecting it,"
This is The explanation which the Supreme
Court give of their own language and mean
ing. And could they, sitting at the capital
OF slaveholding States, under a Constitution
practically pro-slavery ever since its exist
ence, making a part of that Christendom,
more than half Of which now holds slaves,
and the international law of which they have
so often decided does not hold the Slave.
Trade to be a crime, could they, either with
truth or d~ecency, affirm that the existence o
a pro-slavery clause in that Constitution woulc
be so "monstrous an absurdity and i~niustic'
that all mankind would, without hesitation
unite in condemning it"i This they mus
do before Mr.. Spooner's maxim will apply t.
the subject of Slavery.
We conclude, then, LIST. That in deciding
whether a possible meaning of any clause be
immoral or not, Courts will have regard tc
the general system Of National Law under
which they sit.
Cd. That Slavery neither can be. nor has
been, by the law of nations, or our ewn laws,
held criminal, however the IaU Of nature may
view it.
Having settled, then, the real meaning Of
liiasc Jules, letns f~iass..~nthe- otbe. o.aases
Of the Constitution, alluded 10 by Mr.. Spoo.
ner. We shall dispose Of them as briefly az
possible;
1.-THE migration or importation Of such per
sons as any of the States now existing shal
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibit
ed by the Congress prior 10 the year on
thousand eight hundred and eight, but a ia,
|, or duty may be imposed on such importation
not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
Cart. l, Sec. 81
On this clause Mr.. Spooner remarks tina
, corporation" is sometimes used in r~elerene,
, to the voluntary arrival Of foreigners, ant
has no necessary reference 10 slaves. Gran
ted still its ordinary and common use is l.
( describe the bringing into a country, Of arti
} cles Of merchandise and for sale. MIR. Spoo
ner says, p. SO, that migration means gOin!
Out from a country, and hence argues tina
importation is used as its opposite, and refer
simply to persons coming in. This construc
D ton is unsound I; because the dictionary tell
= us that migration means merely ''change o
place." Emigration is used when we speaI
5 of going out of a country. Beside, 1t is tn
migration or importation of such as the Stat
will ADMIT. We admit people in, never OF!
t of a country. Both words, therefore, refer I
t persons arriving; and they either relate, a
Marshall says, @. Wheaton, ~ migratio
= 10 NOlunldTy arrivals anu luIpOitdtiOh ~ ih
C voluntary,-which would settle it that moth
It ing else but the Slave-Trade could be refer
It red to,-or migration means motion on land
and importation, arrivals by sea.
Mr.. Spooner claims that this clause mus
refer to the arrival of foreigners only, an
v have no reference to slaves, because that
the only innocent meaning witch can be civ
en- to it.
We reply, LIST. If it refers to the arrival {
foreigners merely, what is the reason of tn
T. provision, Why was Congress allowed
ID tax them until 1903. and no longer? An
after that date allowed to prohibit their arr
\ val ~altogether2 Such an arrangement seem
entirely unintelligible; and it is indispensi
bic to make sense of an instrument. Any col
70 struction which makes nonsense is to be II
jected ; see Dwarris, Blackstone, Marshal
Again; does Mr.. Spooner really maintai
that this clause, so harmless In appearance
gives to Congress the monstrous power
y prohibiting forever any foreigner from lant
j. ing on our soil : and, Con his meaning
% 'migration,'') of prohibiting every cltize
D. from ever leaving i'll! Such a power SON
: might think more inconsistent "with nalnri
u right than the one he is striving to avoid
i 1t can be only indicated on the score OF b.
q ing absolutely necessary and 1t a~bsoIuteI
necessary now, how were we safe In iorblt
II ding it to Congress for twenty years. II
" 1908 had arrived! If necessary now, VIII
y not then!
~ These considerations are sufficient to sho
that the meaning Mr.. Spooner placed upc
- this clause cannot be the true one. II, {
nj the contrary, we take it as it his usual
Vs. been taken, to refer to the Slave-TTade 1t b
-, comes consistent and Ineligible, and do'
not confer upon Congress such a fearful poV
er as that of, at any tiGe, forbiddlng nailv'
III 10 leave and foreigners TO land in, the cou
try. Beside, this meaning, is Legally inn
IN cent, as we have above explained the mea
is ing of the word, that is, taken in conneet.
with our national laws and institutions. +
he INSTANCE, not only the State slave law