The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-10-28

every hospitable care: would this dispenser
of hospitality be justified by the Rochester res
olutions Most certainly he would, whether
the persons composing the meeting would JUS
tify him or not According TO his creed-in which
his faith isl blind and unquestoning confidence
God. by special revelation, has made it lawful
and right for every man al his pleasure TO take as
many as four wives. Ii is clear that a law for
bidding what God has made lawful and right,
is immoral-and, if immoral, then, by the Ro-
chester resolutions, void. Hence he had
right to exercise his hospitality to the poor big
amist who, TO his view, appeared ga wronged
and innocent wayiarer," hunted by the blood
hounds of power, and most unjustly threatened
with degradation and punishment for a very alb
stemious use of privilege divinely conferred
for taking two wives, when he might rightfully
and without any moral offence have doubled
the number. No fugitive slave could appear
TO the sympathes of the Rochester meeting
half SO much an innocent, oppressed, and
prosecuted waytarer, as, in the case sup
posed. would the fugitive from Anglo Saxon
justice appear TO the tender hearted and pity
ing follower of Islam. And if in following
out by resistance his honest and sincere
convictions that the law was unjust and i'm
moral, he would be criminal, then are the Ro-
chester resolutions false and vicious in princi-
pie. Again, there are persons in the United
States who believe that all wars are unlawful.
because, as they think, forbidden by the divine
law; there are those who deny that the pun
ishment of death can consistently with the same
law be inflicted for any crime. Nor are per-
sons entertaining such opinions warranted in re-
ceivlng, harboring, or secretlng one condemned
to death by the civil power for burgla-
ry, on the ground that the law under
which the judgment was given is considered
by them against the divine law, and there
fore immoral and void; or in rendering the
same service to a soldier sentenced to death
by military court for disobedience of an order
TO fire upon the enemy, on the ground that
what was imputed to him as crime, was but
obedience to God, emitting him to praise
and commentator; and, therefore, he was, in
their view, wronged and hunted wayfarer.
not only innocent but meritorious, to whom this
exercise Of their hospitality was eminently
due.
Again: there are those who deem all pro
perty an unwarrantabe violation of natural
| right-the whole earth, and every part of it,
| being designed by God for the common and
equal benefit of all mankind These, there
fore, condemn all setting apart of destined
portions of the earth or its productions for
the separate use and to be under the sole
dominion of particular persons, as incon-
sistent with the divine law, and unjust en-
croachments upon the general interest of them
selves and others. They look with horror upon
the immoral erclusireness Of property, and
consider the law which supports this immo-
rality as oppressive, tyrannical, immoral, and
Of course, by the Rochester resolutions, void;
and hence there is on them not only no obligation
to obey, but positive duty to resist it, Then
these persons, in rescuing, harboring, and CON
cealing shoplifters, burglars, and highwaymen
are, by clear application of the Rochester
doctrine, engaged in the discharge of high
duty. namely, that of exercising hospitality to
the innocent wayfaIer, and succoring the wronged
and hunted fugitive Rnt further-fnr wa have
not reached the full measure of mischief and
confusion to which this doctrine manifestly
tends--ifthe persons who succoT. harbor, secrete,
n rescue the offenders in the cases above in
'tanced, are acting rightly, because, in their
opinion, the law in these instances is immoral.
will it not follow that the offenders them
Seyes-offenders, that is, in the Judgment Of
this immoral law-are IN truth worthy and ex-
cellent persons, entitled to pity and help, in
stead of being justly liable to punishment? And
ifthe opinion of the party, and not the law, is to
be the test Of guilt or innocence-if the law be
immoral, and void 10 him that thinks it so,
then Judges and iunes are bound to pronounce
him innocent who only disobeys law which
he sincerely considers immoral, because the law
being void as TO him, by reason of its being,
in his opinion, immoral, it was not only his
right but his duty to disobey II, and no one
can, without absurdity, be deemed guilty Of
crime for merely discharging his duty.
Once more-as the duty Of resistance is. by
the Rochester meeting, made to rest solely
upon the opinion that the law is immoral, it
follows that those who do not deem it immoral
are not only not bound to resist, but are bound
to support the law. And, therefore. Of two
armed bands, one engaged in supporting the
magistrate in executing the law, and the other
in resisting the execution Of il, both may be
right-both engaged in the mertorious dis
charge. not Of an imaginary, but Of true
and real duty-and each party justifablc for
the homicides committed on the other And
50 our cities may be made the scene, by night
and by day, Of bloody encounters between hos
tile parties, and yet nobody be to blame; but
on the contrary, all stand entitled to praise and
honor for a faithful and fearless discharge Of
duty.
But we will not pursue this train Of thought
into further particular illustrations. SufIi-
Gent has been said 20 convince good citizens
and upright men--and 10 these only do we sub
nit our yiews-that the assumption on which
the Rochester resolutions are founded is utterly
inconsistent with the fundamental principles
on which all government rests, and is therefore
"a u