Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1851-10-04
VOL. T..
Reply TO ]. W, Newport.
M1L1nnoor. Pa. 9th mo-. oath, 1851.

MrLLBRooK, Pa, 9th mo-, 24th, 1901.
FRIEND MARIUs Till now the pressure Of
my engagements and occupations has allowed
me no opportunity to notice our friend New
ports request, that l would "explain" certain
points, which he presents in The Bugle Of tho
18th inst, but will now endeavor to comply
with his request. If, however am not more
fortunate in conveying my meaning to his mind
than, from his letter, seem to have been at Mt.
Union, he will not be much the wiser for my
attempt.
He takes my allusion, by way Of illustration
merely, to banks and other corporations, as. an
assertion of "a natural right to invest capital in
them, whereas, l simply used the generally re-.
ccived notion on that subject, without dreaming
of meddlng at all with the question Of its cor.
rcctness. All l meant to say, was, that men,
have a right to associate with capital and labor,
on conditions naturally agreed to, but not to en-
ter or remain in such association, when its pur-
poses or conditions arc immoral, and, Of course,
in that case, not to share in its profits. was.
not debating the rightfulness Of "corporations,",
whether called banks or governments; but the
J.
conferred by any corporation, without comply
ing with the required conditions. (By the way
it is news to me, that ga powerful political par
ty" denies the natural right to invest capital
in banking other corporation" l knew
the right to invest it in a monopoly Of banking,
or in corporations with special privileges, is de-
nicd by considerable and perhaps the great
est portion of one, if not more Of the political
parties, but never before heard that any party,
powerful or weak, goes further than this in its.
denial That, however, is nothing either way.
to my argument
Friend Newport says, "did not deny that
the right of suffrage ISL natural right = and he
presumcs "few Republicans will deny it," Now
that is just what did and do deny, and on tho
denial of which, the argument l was urging
was based and "presume few Republicans"
who know what their words mean, will affirm
it. The right of suffragc-by which mean-the
right to participate, by voting, in tho choice of
rulers, and the enactment of laws to govern my
associates in the body polite, as well as myself,
lis purely a conventional, and not a "nattpaI
right" have "natural right" to make tho
agreement by which acquire this convention.
al right, provided the agreement contains no inn.
moral conditions; but without such agreement.
have not the right in question. A "few Rc-
publicans" of some note, in this part of tho
world, have set forth this doctrine in tolerably
explicit terms. If"the government as they
affirm, "dcrives its just power from the consent
Of the governed" then my friend Newport has
no right to govern those who do not consent to
DO governed by him, and consequently no right
to give the vote which governs them, but on tho
conditions which they have affixed to their con-
sent, and without which they do not grantit.
My friend next cites the legal maxim that
"no ono shall take advantage of his own
wrong;" and hence very properly infers that
corporations shall not grow rich at the expense
of their innocent victims, nor governments be
aggrandized from q sacrifice of the natural rights
and liberties of their subjects" Perfectly right;
and that is the very reason, friend Newport,
why some of us will not belong to the great
corporation, called the American Union, which
is growing rich at the expense of its innocent
victims; nor take part in this pro-slavery gov
ernment, which is seeking its own aggrandiz0-
mcnt by sacrificing the natural rights and liber-
ties Of its subjects, and exacts of us, the con-
dition of our sharing its power, that one shall.
help it to make that wicked sacrifice.
The argument which offered at Mt. Union..
and which my friend seems to have so failed to
understand, is briefly this. have no right to.
govern the Shareholders by my vote, but with
their consent. They offer their consent but on
certain conditions and unless these are accept
cd the consent is refused. l cannot conscieR-
tiously accept the conditions, therefore, have
not their consent to give the vote, and coEse-
quently have no right to givei it, Imay not re-
pudiate the conditions of the bargain, and yet
claim the rights which it creates.
hope this explanation may prove intelliga-
BILE and satisfactory.
C. c. BURLEIGH.