Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-10-08
Prom the Carson League.
"CONsTITUTIoNALITY."

Hon. JOnN II. HALE:-
1t is time the friends of Freedom done dis
cussing the "constitutonality" or unconstitution-
ality" of HuNAN SLAVERY. That is, rs relates to
constitutions the work Of human hands. Is 1t,
indeed. possible that any not hcathens, believe that
crime caH b. mddc io,cl What, Christian nation,
Jciicre that sin and crime be made the web and
woOf Of Law Is murder sin? Why? Because
defiance cf God. Is murder crime? Why? Be
cause an invasion and subverson of the Rights Of
Man. The right to liberty follows necessarily from
the right to life for by the possession of liberty
alone, can the faculties and powers Of man be so
used as to fulfil the purposes for which life was be-
slowed. II murder, then, be sin and crime, so is
slavery If murder can be made Law slavery can
be made Law.
But to my proposition. lis time every man who
professes to be friend Of Freedom, should be done
discussing the relations of slavery to Human Law
Human Law cannot make slave. 1t mover did:
it never will. As well might you say, that law had
damned a stream or built factory. Law never
did dam strcam it never will Words cannot
make slave. Slaves are made by ACTS not by
WORDS
But why not prove that the sin and crime Of
slavery are unconstitutional that the Fugitive
Slave Act is unconstitutional Suppose you do so
prove it! The question exists if not asked-why
do you so prove it? DO you say, that the shield
OF the Constitution cannot be invoked to defend and
sustain the things done under the Fugitive Act?
| DO you say thatg Then ask you IL, on so doing
=
the position, that if the man on the other side
proves them constitutional the acts done in accord
ancc Herewith are fully defended and sustained ?
If proof of uncOnstitutionality be reason why a
man may not be made slave, surely, to prove that
it is constitutional, is as cogent a reason why he
NAV be made slave.
! Again: You may prove slavery unconstitutional
| the Fugitive Act unconstitutiOnal-and have YOU
touched the Right of Property of the stakeholder
IN the slave! The right of property does not come
from Lxr.
stitution by Deity. Man can no more make right
than he can make a fixed star. lie can only recog-
nze rights. The use of government is to recognize
rights and maintain them When statute is made
by government to subvert rights, it is Conspiracy
to carry the statute into effect is Piracy
Now, by the laws of nature, no man recognizes
the Constitution as the foundation of his Right to
Property. And therefore, if you prove the Fugitive
Act unconstitutional does that affect the right of
the stakeholder to property in the one claimed
slave! Ii does not touch it. For if that right cx-
lists, 1t does not have its source in the Constitution
and therefore whatever the Constitution says, or
does not say, affects the question neither one way
nor the other. Every man feels and kHoirs that the
Right to property comes from the proper exercise
of the powers and faculties of his nature And if
you prove the Fugitive Act unconstitutional, the
RigM of the claimant TO property in the man
claimed, is as perfect as If the Act constitu-
tonal.
1t follows then, thata Constitutional" argument
on the subject of slavery, is in itself concession
Of the doctrine that man can hold property in his
fellOw-man. 1t does not make any difference which
side is taken; for it is only the pful thimble-rig
ger who says" Heads | win: tails you lose"
Only petty larceny man would pretend, that in an
argument the successful side did not win the point
SO he who enters the lists to prove that by the Con-
stituton and Fugitive Act there is no right to make
a man slave, must be ready quietly to abide the
issue if the contrary be proved by these documents
But do you say that we ought to prove the Fug-
tive Act unconstitutional in order thereby to prove
that we arc not bound by compact to make any man
u slave, or to suffer any man to be made n slave?
compact for crime is voidl--not vOidablc but void
If slayerybe sin and crime, no compact entered
into in reference to it be binding on any human
being for an instant.
| 1t is well enough to illustrate the principle by
comparison. 1t is said that if any one statute is
not binding one is binding. This is an error, in
fact and in logic Here is law, for property in
man by the side of it, one for property in house
or q wagon. Man is the work of God the house
or the wagon is the work Of man. God owns prop
erty in man man, in horses and wagons. SO that
any legislation pretending to property by man in
man, is a conspiracy against God and man and
any action to carry such conspiracy into effect, is
both blasphemy and piracy Property in man,
therefore, can no more be the subject Of human leg
islation, than the circulation of the blood the
action of the stomach or lungs property in horses
and wagons is n proper subject Of legislation, and
we are bound to obey the laws that are made in
reference TO them.
| therefore beg to say, that every word uttered
the constitutonaity of slavery, by the professed
friends of Freedom is far worse than thrown away.
1t is forging etters for the slave If man have the
right to make another slave, it is wholly matter
of policy and discretion with the strongest If he
have not the right, then to make II slave is piracy,
If he have the right to hold him as "A slave, he has
the right to take him, if he away with with
out constitution; and he is n pirate who would
prevent his recapture. If he have right to hold
him as n slave, to take him. or 10 aid in taking him.
/ when he runs away is piracy--no less If the Con
sttution directs permits il no more if the Con
sttution is either silent or denounces IL
w. L. CRANDAL.
! SYRAcYsE Sept |, 1858.
A correspondent of the Tribune states that Rev.