Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1851-06-28
MR.. lIALE'S SPEECH.

| MIR. Hale had read from the English Re-
| ports, from the civil law, aud from tue Mass
achusetts Reports, numerous decisions TO tho
affect that slavery is against the law of God,
the law of nature, aud the laws of England
and Massachusetts. lie also read from the
law of Virginia and other Southern states, TO
show that person of Shadruch's color(not a
negro) is there, presumed to be free, and can
not he proved slave except by evidence of
descent from an African Slave Mother, and
that possession and holding as n slave did not
afford presumption of slavery. MIR. Hale
proceeded.
Our lathers IN asserting their own indepen-
dence from an oppression-a thousand Years
OF which would not he equal to day ofslave-
ry-proclalned in most solemn and authorita-
tive manner, the same doctrine that one man
cannot possess another. And they did NOT
content themselves with carving il IN to
court held by presidential canddates-they
fought for il. Now it has come TO pass that If
man asserts this doctrine, he is regarded as
traitor and fanatic. And il was the doctrine
OF those who framed the Constitution. That
instrument recognizes no rights of property
IN man IT dose not bind to the delivery of
iugiives from slavery in general sense, but
only OF such persons as are held by State
laws TO service and labor. And what eyi-
dcnce dose the government offer in this case,
10 prove that Shudrach was so held2
The Govcrn'nt has brought forward 10 prove
Obligations of Shadrach TO service and labor,
the testimony of Debrce and Cauhnrt. surh
us 1t is. Aud ! am aware that The leanred
Court has ruled il to be testimony, but am
not aware that it has ruled that you shall con-
slider their testimony satisfactory. If il did,
II could not make you believe il so. Let us
look at il, The presumption is that Shadrach
is free. So says the law of Virginia. So
says the Common Law. So says the Dcclara-
ton OF Independence. So says the Constitl-
ton. Debreo swears that he OWNS him.
But his oath cannot establish u right of
prouerty TO what God and Nature declare
cannot be property. With all reverence, this
question resolves into question of veracity
between God aud Dehree.
Now, Gentlemen, il appears that there is
no slavery by the law OF England by the law
Of Massachusetts, by the law of nature, and
these old judges Sdy-mind Your EXcellency,
do not say this, it would be treason, so un-
eqivocal u recognition of the Higher Law
would he treason in me-but these old i,tdges
say, that is against the law of God Against
all these laws, against all this evidences,
against ali these presumptions, comes one
John Dedree from Norfolk, Virginia and SAYS
that he OWNS HIM This is all the evidence!
The mere breath of slave catcher's mouth,
turns man into another mans chatteI! Sup
pose John De Bree had said that he owned
the moon, or the stars or had an exclusive
righ TO ihe sunshine, would you find it so by
your verdict.
But, gentlemen, the stars shall fade and
fall from Heaven; the moon shall grow old
aud decay the Heavens themselves shall pass
away MS scroll bur the soul of the despis-
ed and hunted Shadrach shall live on, with
the life OF God himself! i wonder if John
de Bree will say he owns him then!
(The outbreak ofirrepressbe applause WINS
hardly checked by the efforts of the Court
and the Marshal)