Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-10-09

ment does feCognlLe Inc cNisWhNO w S'"'
ry? 1t does not follow, that it approvingly
does so. And the bare recognition OF slave
ry, is not an obligation to uphold It any
more than the recognition of illiternteness
would be an obligation to uphold illiterate-
ness. The cessation Of siarey ,cowd mol
make an amendment of The clause necessary
But after all can this clause, without dong
Injustice to its language, mud the canon ol
Interpretation, he made TO refer to slavery
Suffice il to say here, that it has been con
clusively proven, that the correllative ol
" free" in this conncxion cannot mean
slaves.
Next is the clause providing for the migra-
ton aud importation of Persons. deny
this meaning Slaves, it means persons, We
nre TO take it as it reads. Look at the Slave
Statutes and sec if the definition of n Slave
fills the definition attached to "person !"
look to Webster not Dan, but Noah Webster,
see his definition Gf the word Slave, look
where you will, aud your argument falls to
the gronnd. The word Slave, is not found
ia the Constitution, nor anything that can
he made to answer its purpose. At least it
is to bc proved that there is, in one instance,
let alone this one. The legal rules of inter
probation, n,rcquire if there bc doubtful mean
ing, "tliat the innocent meaning shall he
adopted, casting away that which iayors
crime" But as this clause has expired by
its own Limitation, more than forty years ago,
it was perhaps unnecessary to mention it,
1t was, however, Gf it means slaves), by
inference, the strongest anii-slavory nrgu-
ment for The Constitution: showing clearly
that it was intended for the extinction of
Slavery in that generation, by the prohibition
Of the importation, taken in connection with
other facts aud clauses in the Constitution.
The clause respecting "lomcstic violence"
is next in order. II there was not slave
in the land, would not this clause, unntcred,
he an indispensbly necessary clause of the
Constitution? Time will not permit me to
dwell on this to any length. But elect true
man to the Presidency, aud the difficulty is
theirs. Were the Slaves violently to assert
their freedom, and the President true man,
he would promptly tell the Shareholder that
he was was the iusurgent,- t,--because he
would regard not those who were striving
for their delivcranco from the cruelty of
bonds, but their oppressors us the gully ones
as the ones who were guilty of "domeslic
al. A,l l,, 4 4, L.. 4
would defend the Federal Constitution, aud
would treat the slave laws as void, because
repugnant TO the same. So much then for
political action.
Next is the clause relating to Fugiliycs
from Service. But had there not not been
Slave in the country, aud no prospect of
there being one, this clause would also have
been proper. For the same reasons that
have been given, this clause cannot refer TO
Slaves. Slaves are really men if they "owc,'
for slaves cannot owe no more thnn can
horse. Says Gerrit Smith, "n fugitive slave
is claimed, brought before mngistrate."-
"On what groud do you claim hm?" asks
lhe justice. "On the ground TINT he is my
property" replies the claimant, "Then the
Constitution has nothing to do with the
case" rejoins the magistrate. Euen Gs inter
preted By The Supreme Court, IL admits no ight
Of property in man." Then says the claim
ant, 81 clam his services on the ground that
lie is "person." But says the magistrate,
fnEn tkttN { - q,
In the case of man and a mouse, one can
mako n bargain. The man catches the
mouse, and the mouse is his wihou; the con-
sent of the mouse. But far otherwise is il
in case Of two persons. II one claims the
services of the other, he must show the con.
tract by which the other consented to serve
him."
But | must close, us have extended my
article TO nn immoderate length already. !
have touched upon the arguments merely,
that may be produced on the ant-savery
character Of the Constitution, but have
said enough to lead to reflection, aud would
refer those who would investigate, to the
many works now published on the sub
ject. AS TO what is said in relation to the
iIlegaliy of Slavery in the Government,
challenge successful contradiction, which is
really the essential point at issue. The read
er will refer to the rules of Interpretation,
laid down in the above works, which could
not give for want of room, which will add
greatly to the force Of what is said. Also,
no one can fail to see how utterly futile, ab-
surd and silly, it is for protesting abolition
lists to nsk the stakeholder to give up his
victims when they acknowledge his right TO
hold them; this, too, is virtually their posi-
ton The stakeholder asks for his property,
you grant il. lie says he has legal and