Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1848-04-28


ly 10 the extension Of slavery-that they are
as politicians mere Wilmoi-proyiso men.
The doctrine which we have above ascrib.
ed to Mr.. Hale upon this point, is exactly
our own, and Mr.. Smith has put US upon our
defence.
Before offering a brief statement of our
views, we take leave TO say in reply to Mr..
Smith, that the nomination of Mr.. Hale by
the Buffalo Convention Is not the reason of
our agTeemet in opinion with him upon this
subject. We have never thought otherwise.
Mr.. SIS own arguments, and those OF Will
liam Goodell, have not convinced us and
we may add, that we never read a book writ
ten by any man Of ability, of which we be-
lieved so little, as of Spooner's work upon
the unconstitutionality Of slavery. We rose
from its perusal, when it was first published,
with the opinion that its foundation facts
were untrue, its logical premises unsound,
its arguments inconclusive, and its ]conclu-
sions, only the repetition Of its premises
the mere echo of its assumptions. Nendall
Phillips very kindly favored US with his re-
view uf Spooner, but we needed no argument
on that side, and thought an epilaph would
have been more to the purpose.
Mr.. Smih, in his letter 10 Mr.. Chase, says,
81 have, for many years, seen on the face of
the Constitution, power TO abolish every part
Of American slavery"
la the Preamble, he finds that one Of the
objects of ordaining and establishing the Com
I slitution, was, to "secute the blessings OF
/ liberty to ourselves and our ~posterity )" to
which we answer; let this mean whatsoever
it may, and include whomsoever we please,
it is NOS a substantive enactment, and that, of
itself and by itself, it can effect nothing. a
preamble is not a provision OF a constitution
or law, but a general, and often a loose, stale
ment of the reasons and objects OF the instru-
ment which it ~pretaces. Its proper office is
TO guide and assist in the construction OF
dOuJIul passages in the body Of the instru-
ment, and can be safely resorted TO, only 10
explain difficult, insensible or incoherent pro-
visions therein.
Tho provisions Of the instrument itself,
quoted to prove the alleged power TO abolish
slavery, are amendments
"Arl. ". The right of the people to be
secure in their persons. houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated !" and,
Art. v. No person shall be deprived OIL
life, liberty, or property, without due process:
of law"
Mr.. Smiths inference from these clauses
is, that they gipe power to the Federal Go
vernmen to abolish slavery In the States.-
In fact, these amendments, one and all, down
to the tenth article, are negations, restriction
and limitations of power. They are power
} withheld, not powers given. They are en-
r acted deiensively against the United State
Government, protectively of the States ant
the people, and operate only as prohibition
,H.t E,,,,,;A., ,.n, tln H,r.r,1 INNuorp
ment; and SO far from warranting an inter
ference of the Union with the Institutions o
the sovereign States, they expressly forbid j
altogether, or limit and bound it by defining
and hedging its authority. They use tn,
language Of jealousy, not declarations of trus
or bestowals Of authority. From the begin
ming TO the end of these amendments, Their
is not one empowering clause of any kind o
over any subject.
Moreover, - the Constitution Of the United
States Governments an instrument contain
S ing the grant of specific powers, and the Go
vernment Of the Union cannot claim any pow
. ers but what are contained III the grant, an'
t given either expressly or BY necessary impli
5 cation."-lst kent's Com, p. 3l3. tn,
3 tenth article of the amendments says, 9TH
powers not delegated by the Constitution t
t the United States, nor prohibited by 1t TO III
} States, are reserved TO the States respective
ly, or to the people,"
Now no specific grant, either express, Q
: necessarily implied, Of power to the Fedora
Government TO abolish slavery within tn
States, is or can be shown, if we are right i
our construction of the amendments cited b,
Mr.. Smith. He quotes nothing explicit, an
he finds nothing doubtful that Will authorlz
him to borrow a helping construction troi
the Preamble.
. But if the quoted amendments were eve
empowering enactments, they would fail t
support the proposition which we are con
!, batting. Security of persons from unreaSOf
: able searches and seizures, Is surely not II
i tended TO protect children from seizure b
j their parents, or apprentices by their masters
nor any other person held by law 10 service
as slaves are, by those who claim that Sc.
S vice. The sequel of the article explains I'll
manner in which (by the General Govern
l. ment) seizures and searches may be mad
when the objects are criminahy charged bl
no ingenuity can show that children, appreI
II tees or slaves are within the protection
i this clause, as against their parents or maj
lers, in the exercise of their commonly recog
n nized authority.
In like manner, if the sentence, "No pc
20 son shall be deprived of liberty without du
a process of law" were authority for nations
interference, (Which it is not that interfe
ence would be effectually met by the fact th'
slaves are held by authority of law, and thi
l. would end it.
8, There are besides other views Of the'
h points which would sustain our position, bl
we waive them.
Ia Mr.. Smith urges one other argument
ID 1.-The United States shall guaranty TO ev
5. ny stale in this Union a republican form
D. government, and shall protect each of the.
10 against INVASION" &c.
10 What shall the United States dol
Guaranty a republican form of government