The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-07-25

Now, what was Mr.. Buffers bill, but ga new
organization of the courts or, rather, new
creation of some twenty thousand courts" in such
manner as not TO secure the right Of trial by
juryl to suitorsp Ii was, indeed, violation Of
both Of the principles laid down by Judge Bald
win. II was the creation of tribunals unknown
to the common law, and authorizing those tribu-
nails to decide upon rights not belonging to either
equity or admiralty jurisdiction"
In this connection, will refer to the case Of
Lee vs.. Lee, PaeJs's Rsp, "A.
By act of Congress- of April 2, 1916, it was de-
clared that no cause should be removed from the
Circuit Court Of the District of Columbia to the
Supreme Court, by appeal or writ Of error, un-
less the matter in dispute shall be of the value of
one thousand dollars or upwards The plaintiffs
In error we're claimed as slaves Their petition
for freedom in the court below had been decided
against them; and from this decision they appealed
The defendant in error took the objection that
they,-their bodies and souls,-were not worth one
thousand dollars, and therefore that they had no
right to appeal But the court said:
The matter In dispute this case s the freedom Of the
petitioners The judgment OF the court below IL against
their claims to freedom the matter In dispute Is therefore
70 the plaintiffs in error the value of their freedom and this
IS not susceptible Of pecuniary radiation Had the judg
been In Of the petitioners and the writ Of error
brought by the party claiming 10 be the the value OF
the slaves property would have been the matter dispute
1
But sdAvts estimating the value Of freedom entire
inadmssbe and doubt Is entertained Of the Jurisdiction
I Now, II the Supreme Court OF the Uniteo States
in constituting law felt constrained by their oaths
| to hold the freedom Of a mar, -of any man. though
he might be dwelling idiot or stretched upon his
deathbed, with only another hour to breathe,-tc
be worth more than thousand dollars, how can q
Senator Of the United States say, that in passing
| Law, under which human liberty may be retained
or lost he is not bound at least by the esprit Of
the Constitution, if not by its letter to hold that
human liberty to be of greater value than twenty
dollars and therefore to provide the trial by jury
for its protection What can prove more striking
ly that Mr. Webster violates the whole spirit y
OF the Constitution, when the trainers aud ratfers
of this amendment coyenanted for and decreed the
trial by jury, for such paltry sum of money; and
when the Judges Of the Supreme Court held hui
man liberty TO be worth more than any nameabe
sum of money, while he regards it as thing to be
disposed of by any corrupt postmaster which any
corrupt Administration may corruptly appoint.
Yet he says Nothing can be more false than
that jury trial is demanded in cases of this kind
by the Constitution, either in its letter, or IN us
spirit" -
wish could find, or felt at liberty to coin some
| milder word but fof want of better, must say
r---Slsfr. Webster seems TO me, throughout this
whole matter to dogmaiizs. He makes strong az
sertions without Offering even weak reasons. OF
this character was his ahnuncaSion of the dseoy-
cry of new law" the law Of physical geogra-
| phy,"-which was to suspend moral agency, and
take from man his power to commit crime against
his brother; as though in ascending hill-sides,
freedom and slavery lie in different atmospherical
strata, and are bounded by each other mpassably
as though there were any mountain so exceeding
high" to whose top even Jesus Christ could go,
that Satan could not 60 there to tempt him. This
does not strike the common mind like a true dis
covery; like the law of gravitation for instance,
discovered by Newton, the existence of the
! planet Neptune by Leverrer. 1t is rather like
that earliest pretended discovery on record, which
was designed to seduce, and did seduce, the first
parents Of us all. " may eat of the forbidden tree
for ye shall NOT surely die. So Mr. Webster says,
Let slaves be driven in coles or carried in ships
holds to the new Territories they cannot live
there. Will not the results of the two experiments
bear lively analogy to each other and be likely
TO reflect similar credit upon their authors
So, too, when he tore some of the brightest pages
from the New Testament, by proclaming that
"there is to be found no injunction against that
relation of slavery between man and man, in the
teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or of any
of his Apostles"l Upon how many Christian hearts
did this sentiment fall like anathema ag ainst all
truth. lie does not say any cypress injunction but
no injunction none OF any kind No posuipe
injunction against slavery in the New Testament!
"a book designed toregulae our life and condition
for two worlds; yet, altogether, not so large as
many Congr essional report less voluminous
| than the ordinances of many of our city govern
ments "a book, therefore which, from the neces-
sity of the case must deal with great and immortal
principles, and could not descend into specification
and detail and because such a book as this con-
tains no express injunction against slavery, there
fore slavery is not forbidden by il, but has the
implied approval of its silence! Never was there
a more sinister unsound, unchrisian argument
uttered by infdel or pagan. Is there any express
injunction "in the teachings of the Gospel Of Jesus
Christ, or of any of his postles," commanding us
to declare the African slave trade piracy? Is
there any express Injunction ain the teachings of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or of any of his Apos-
ties" against cannibaism DO they anywhere
say, aye shall not eat one another?n Yet what
enormty and righteousness would it be to infer,
that, therefore, men and women may turn Ogres
and 0gresses, and eat human flesh as they do
mutton and beef The inference in the latter case
is every whit as warrantable, as sound as in the
former Yet consider that this theological argu-
ment does not violate the spirit y of the Gospel
any more than his constitutional argument violates
the spirit Of the Constitution. John Wesley,
who had lived amid slavery, denominates it the
sum of all vilanesn and If Christ came into
this world and left it, without permeatng and
saturating oil his teachings with injunctions
against the injustice cruelty, pride, avarice, lust,
love of domination, and love Of adulation, which
are the inseparable Accomplishments of slavery,
then | think the Christian world will cry out,
that 30 far as this life is concerned, his mission
was substantially fruitess.
| "oh, star-eyed Science hast thou wandered there
To bring us back these tdings Of despsirf"
So if the Constitution of the United States con-
tains not even any implied security for the liberty
of all the colored population in the free States and
Territories, and for the trial by jury as the only
adequate means of securing that liberty, then
would it not be more creditable to its trainers
never to have put their signatures to 1t
LIBERTY OF THE CITIZENS MORE VALUABLE
THAN THEIR LIFE OR PROPERTY
The fifth article of amendment declares that
ono person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process Of lawo The COM
menrators say that these words, due process of
law" are the equivalent of the phrase "the law of
the land in the Goth chapter of Magma Charta
and hence that "ths clause in effect afiirms the
| right of trial according to the process and pro-
ceedings Of the common law !" that is, by jury.
See Story's Comm. 66l; . Inst, so, 81 ? Kenps
Comm, 10; fuckers Black App, 3O4.
Now, consider that the general right Of trial by
jury III oascs vi iyel was expressly scoureu py tue
Constitution as originally adopted that, somewhat
more than three years afterwards, the same right
was expressly secured for PROPERTY In suits at CON-
mon law, whenever the value in controversy should
exceed twenty dollars; and then say whether there
is not the strongest implication in favor of the
same right, in Of human liberty, which is so
much more precious than life and property CON-
bined do not here say it is an implication that
binds the courts in administering law that is
not the point under discussion. But is 1t not an
implication that binds the legislator, so that when
legslating on the subject he cannot conscientious
ly and wilfully abandon il without infdelity to his