The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-11-24

One court reverees the decision OF another
court, and, in doing so, aifirms that the previous
decision was not Law. The same court and
sometimes the same judge gives a decision
Numerically opposite 70 former one thereby
affirming the ilegslity Of the former decision.
| This was done by Lord Chief Justice Mans
field in the Somerset case, affirming the ille-
gality of Slavery in England. 1t would be alb.
surd to maintain that all judicial decisions are
truthful exponcnts of LAW, for this would be
to maintain that law contradicts itself, and
| that thing may, at the same time, be lawful
and unlawful A decision Of a court does not
make the law, nor infall,bly determine what is
law The law, whatever the decision concern
ing it may be, is an triSting fact ;. and like
every other fact is not altered by any affirma-
ton OF denial that may be made in respect to
it. When affirm, therefore the illegality of
Slavery, | do not introduce n topic, the discus
sion Of which has been foreclosed by judicial
decisions Those decisions here, as in England.
may hereafter be reconsidcred and reversed
| Nor do subject myself to the imputation Of
| denying or doubling that the statutes and Ju-
diCia decisions hitherto, in this comfy, are in
| favor of Slavery ! know that they are, but |
affirm that they are 80, nevertheless in violation
of law.
And, in making this affirmation, | mean
something an addition 10 the sentiment that
| Slavery is in violation Of moral law, the law
Of nature, the law of God. This idea is nclu-
ded and il furnishes an important link in the
chain of the argument | shall employ. But
thousands will admit that Slavery violates the
diwne law, who yet c0ncede that it is in ac-
cOrdance with the civil law, and a constituent
element of it. In opposition to this | affirm
| that slaveholding is in opposition to the cirii
law-that il il as truly 10 AZ any criminal prac-
tice that can be named. | say this, not for
the purpose of enunciating anything hyperbol-
ical OF startling; still less for the object of OPP
| probrium or abuse. | say it merely as express
sive OF my firm and settled conviction of the
legal fact of the case. | mean to saw that il
IS the legal duty OF every court Judge, and
juror, duty to which the solemn oaths OF
their offica! stations bind them, to affirm the
illegality Of Slavery and the crimlnality of
slaveholding, whenever a case involving the
personal liberty of an enslaved person comes
before them hold that every slave in Amer
lea il entitled to verdict and judgment affirm
ing his or her freedom, in any of the court
holding jurisdiction over such cases and thai
the State and National Governments, in al
their departments, are obligated 60 no legal
recognition of slaveholding, except the recogni
rcctly understood, then, when affirm the ille
gality of slaveholding
IL will be thought, perhaps by some, that
the proposition is too extravaganza one to be
believed or even to deserve u moments atten
tiun. 1t will be thought arrogant for privat,
citizen, unnitiated in the learned profession o
the law, to set up his opinion on a law ques
ton, in opposition to the opinions of the emf
nent judges of the United States courts. Tn,
same was once thought aud said in England
when Granville sharp, ON this same subject
adventured publicly TO arraign the learned
opinions and authoritative decisions of Yorl
aud Talbot of Blackstone and Mansfield, tn,
acknowledged and official expoundcrs Of thu
Constitution and the laws Of England. But h,
lived to- witness the triumph Of his opinions
He lived to see Blackstone and Mansfield re
{ tract their errors, and proclaim that slave
cannot breathe i'll England" IL Blackston
and Mansfield erred the Judges Of our Unite,
States courts may err. If public sentimen
revoutionizod the jurisprudence Of England,
may exert some inf lence IN Republican Amer
i ica. And if an obscure British subject Nigh
, dissent from titled Judges American citizen
, may do the same The result Of the investga
= ton in England should temper the tone {
2 those who would contcmptuously sneer at
!, similar investigation in America The histor
IS cal and legal connection between the Shaver
o of England and the Slavery Of America, shoul
at least suggest the inquiry how Slavery eouI
have become legalized here, when it could M
become legalized there
The public sentiment of to. day, may becom
the public wonder Of tomorrow or of a fe'
years hence. Even now, the names of thos
who have dsbelieved, and who at present, dir
believe the legalyaiidity Of saveholding il
either hemisphere are sufficiently numerou
and weighty to redeem the doctrine from oon
tempt. This will appear a. we proceed.
WILLIAM GooDELL.
| A.. X,.L Ne, 1880