Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1850-06-22
From the N. Y. Tribune.
Mr.. Mann and Mr.. WebSter---A hard hit,

ions put forth by Horace Mann in his late adj
dress to his constituents. As VIC have not pub
lished the Ncwburyport letter VIC do not intend |
to copy the reply; but the latter contains one |
or two hits as fair as they are hard, which can
not be omitted from our columns. Mr.. Mann
begins by quoting the following passage from
Mr. Webster's letter;
have seen publication by Mr. Horace
Mann, Member of Congress from Massochu-
sctts, in which find this sentence. Speaking |
Of the bill before the House, he says This
bill dcrides the trial by Jury secured by the
Constitution. A man may not lose his horse
without right to this trial, but he may lose his
freedom. Mr. Webster speaks for the South
and for Slavery, not for the North and for Free
dom, when he abandons this right" This per-
sonal vituperation does not annoy me, but l
lament to sec public man of Massachusetts so
crude and confused in his legal opprchensions,
and 30 little acquainted with the Constitution of
his country as these opinions evincc Mr.. Mann
to be. His citation Of supposed case, as in
point, if It have any analogy to the matter,
would prove that, if Mr.. Mann's horse stray
into his neighbours field, no cannot lead him back
oiihom precious trial by Jury TO ascertain the
right. Truly, if what Mr.. Mann says Of the
provisions of the Constitution in this publca-
Or be a test of his accuracy in the understand
ing Of that instrument, he would do well not to
seek to protect his peculiar notions under its
sanction, but to appeal at once, as others do, to
that hirh authority which sits enthroned above
the Constitution and above the law.
On this Mr.. NJ. thus commonts:
Mr.. Webster "lumcnts to see a public
man of Massachusetts so crude and confus-
cd in his legal apprehcnsions, and so little
acquainted with the Constitution of his coun-
try as these opinions eyince Mr.. Mann to
be-" Yet he points out no error of opinion.
He specifies nothing as unsound. lie pre-
sents no information, indictment, bill of par
tculars, or even the "conmon counts."-
Judgement and condemnation alone appear.
He seems TO have taken it for granted that
he had only to say ! was guilty, and then
proceed to punish. L protest against and
impugn this method of proceeding by any
man, however high, against any man, how |
ever humble.
When MIR. Webster penned his " lamen- |
tations" " over my crudeness, confusion and
ignorance, he doubtless meant TO deal me a |
mortal blow. The blow was certainly hea- |
Wy; but the question still remains iChetier Il !
ht Polyphemus struck hard blows but his !
blindness left the object of his passions un-
harmed.
But wherein do these erroneous "opin- !
lOuS COilSlSl3 WHICH, MT. NtDslcr uOcS |
not deign to specify, but assumes TO con-
denim? Fortunately, in writing the sem
tences which he quotes for animadyersion,
| followed the precise meaning of Judge
Story, as laid down in his Commentaries
and in regard to the only point which is
open to question, l took he erdct t0ortis of
that great Jurist. He speaks of "the right
of trial by Jury, in civil cases." as an ex-
isting right before the seventh article of the
amendment TO the Constitution, which pre-
SERVES this right I" in suits at common law"
had been adopted. Comm. 62S. Instead
of transcribing Judge Story's words "in
civil cases." which present no distinct image
to common minds, [ supposed the every
day case of n litigation respecting horse,
which is 'civil case and this difference of
form is the only difference between my Ian
guage and that of the learned Judge. | can
wish Mr.. Webster no more fitting rctribu-
ton, after reposing from this ill-tempered
attack upon me, than TO awake and find that
il was Judge Story whom he had maligned.
But the opinion expressed by me on this
point, does not need the authority of any
name to support it; and the illustration
which gave is not only ineligible to every
sensible man, but is also opposite. said a
man may not lose his horse his property in
horse without n right TO this trial" Mr.
Websters comment is, that this case, off
have any analogy TO the NATTER" means, that
if a mans horse stray into his neighbor's
field, he cannot lead him back iCithom a preri-
Ots trial by jury, 10 ascertain the right" Was
ever the plain meaning of n sentence more
exactly changed about, end for end Mr..
Webster may pitch summersets with his own
doctrines, but he has no right 10 pitch them
with mine. ] said man may not lose his
horse, or his property in horse, without a
right to the trial by jury. lie says | said, a
man cannot find or retake lost horse, with
out a previous trial Duice est deSiperc in
loco. Or, it is pleasant to see grave Sena-
tor play upon words, but there must be wit to
redeem it from puerility.
But the childishncss of this criticism is
not its worst feature. What is the great
truth which Mr.. Webster and his apologsts
attempt here to ridiculc? 1t is that while
every man amongst us, in regard to any
piece Of property worth more Than twenty
dollars, of which violence or fraud may at
tempt to despoi him, has a right to a trial
| 10y jury, yet n mans freedom, and that of
his postcrity forever, may be wrested from
| him, rs our law now stands, without such
trial. Docs not this hold a mans freedom
TO be Of less value than twenty dollars? If
| two adverse claimants contest title TO an al
legged slave, whose market value is more than
this sum, each is entitled to a jury to try the
fact of ownership. But if the alleged slave
declares that he owns himself he is debar-
red from this right Aud this truth, or
common illustration of il, Mr.. Webster and
| his apologists think a suitable topic for
sneers or pleasantly A foreign proverb
says that for man TO kill his mother IS not
il good taste. trust the moral aud religious
people of Massachusetts have too much good
taste to relish joke on such theme.
Mr. Mann then goes on to examine at length
and with remarkable ability and learning, the
merits of the legal and constitutional question
of granting trial by jury to persons claimed as
fugitive Slaves, arguing that chey have every
way good right thereto.
We quote the following paragraphs:
MIR. Webster advises me, in certain con-
tingency, "to appeal to that higher authority