The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1849-08-04

word, as applied to The ordinary jects Q
properly. Secondly, that slavery is cres
turs Of the munic pal law, and can onl
exist in con mGnity su ject TO that parlic
ulsr municipal system by which, ia derog,
ZION of natural justice, it is specially crea
Jed So true is this that 10 person goin,
into any Strange civihsed community, hi
interest in the usual objects Of propert,
will be protected and insured to him by tn,
LAWS OF the community into which he ha
gone; but if be takes slave with him, tn,
moment he passes from under the iurisdic
ZION OF that particular municipal system
which invested him with p, cuniary prop
eEy in his slaves, the great law of nature
IS declared supreme, and the slave goes free
Nov why this discrimination? Because all
men recognise your natural right to holc
the one Kind ofproperty, and therefore ex,
tend TO II the protection Of the laws Of lheil
society; while lhey deny your natural RICH
TO hold the other kind, and Of course dc
not extend TO il such protection. Its sole
ly Creature OF your own municipal law,
andis without material protection anywh here
else than under sho js,isdis,isn Of tina,
particular system by which il is specially
created. This has been declared to be the
nature Of slavery by the judicial, and there
fore the highly authoritative decision, oil
one OF the most august tribunals on earth.
Now, the simple question is, what are
the power and night of msyority in rela.
lion 10 all institutions, specially established
by the municipal or constitutional law Of a
State? Most sssuredly to change, to mod.
lly, 10 abrogate at It's discretion. Ii is said
that a majority Of two in the Convention Of
1892 established the Institution of slavery
and gave TO it the sanction of our constitu-
lional law. We know that the members
OF THAT Convention did not then, for the
first time create and beslow the right of
holdIag a PecuniaTy properly in slaves
which We now enjoy. That work was
done to their hands long before, as we shall
presently see. But they did sustain and
perpetuate the institution when it was vigo-
rousIy assaled, and had we'll nigh been
overIhTown, willie il was in its infancy ia
This Commonwealth. SLAYER was thus en-.
tailed upon US BY majority of only two.
And in the name of common sense is il not
equally Just and proper, that now, when
the experience Of more than fifty years has
proved how ill-iaied was the action OF that
Convention-when the institution has de-
veloped more and more how ample is its
capacity for injuIy--how like dead weight
II has hung upon the growth and prosperit,
OF our Slaie-is il not now equally lust
and competent, that majority SO regard
ing it should have as well the right as the
power to abolish and destroy it,
Yes, responds that party which in spite
OF all experience 10 the contrary, pertina
ciously insists that slavery is a blessing
The very same right that a majority would
have TO make an equal distribution Of oil
The private property in the commonwealth,
Or wanIonly to destroy it in any other man.
ner.
But this answer loses sight Of the natu.
raj distinction, that property in negroes de.
pends both Tor its existence and security
upon the municipal lsw-whiIe property
in lands, animals, vegetables, &c, depends
for It's existence upon the great law OF ma.
ture; and only for the security OF its ind.
vidual appoTtionment and distribution upon
The laws of society; accordingly the uni.
versal sense of men comedies the natural
right TO hold and possess the one kind OF
ProPerty-while the universal sense Of
civilised men except small fraction com
posed Of those actually interested, denies
he natural right 10 possess the other kind
Of property TO such degree that it requires
positive federation ami manifold provisions
Of human law, in order to create and
sanction right TO holdit. Hence the forci.
ole distribution Of private property would
be Justly reprehensible as a rapacious agra
ramsnl, While men would almost univer
sally hail the abrogation Of slavery as the
triumph Of justice over oppression, Of mag
nanin.ity over sel6shness. While but few
could be found who would ever question
the right OF majority to annul an njuri.
Gus institution, which depended for its orr.
ginal establishment upon the concurrence
Of majority in its support. Would it not
be strange anomaly in republican gov.
eminent, il a majority acting in its sove.
reign capacity should have the power and
right 10 establish an institution. and after
that institution had proved itself empbsti.
calIv a nuisance thai a msiori,v SO esteem.
ing IL should vet not have The power and
right 70 abolish il, when acting in a like
sovereign capacity? Where would be the