Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-04-23

backward from 1914 to 1914.
MIR. Phillips carps repeatedly, because,
when speaking of our oath to support the
| Constitution, said, with our Interpretation
OF H.. lie now assumes that | hold that
! our Interpretation is the common one and
declares himself misled. Why all this? He
cannot affect 10 he so ignorant as not to know
that there are various aud even hostile in-
terpreiatlons Of the Constitution, on the point
OF surrendering fugitive slaves. One school
holds that 1t belongs to Congress, another,
TO the States; one that il requires trial by
jury, and another that it does not. never
said our Interpretation tCas The common one,
ana had no occasion TO say so. A u that is
evidently irrelevant.
But this is endless. 1t is impossible to fol-
low and expose Mr.. Phiilips's paralogisms
aud misstatemcnis, unless MIR. Garrison will
publish daily, and let us fill it.
proceed TO the only passage in his last
letter, which las point or plausiblity; and
III answering it, shall answer many othei
things. To give Mr. Phillips tho benefit of
his strongest passage, quote it entire: -
Last fall, Mr.. Mann voted, / presume, for
John p. Hale for President. II matters not
to the responsibility of voter, whether his
candidate is elected or not At the same
time, MIR. Mann himself consented to receive
the votes Of his pnrty for the office of Gov
ernor of Massachusetts. Now, il the Su-
preme Court is right, Mr.. Hale, if elected
President, would have bceu bound to appoint
hlnrshals TO execute the slave surrender
clause, aud to execute il himself il il were
resisted. II that Court is wrong, and the
Free Soilers are right, in holding that the
clause refers 10 the Statcs, aud needs no
auxiliary legislation, then Mr.. Mann, if Gov
ernor, would lave been hound to see it
,obeyed. You will please observe that am
not supposng either of these men would
do such an infamous deed. only assert, in
Mr.. Mann's lnngungr, that their respective
odthS Uouid ojiige them 10 do Il. In voting,
then, for Mr.. Hale, Mr.. Mnln asked his
friend TO take an oath which Ubligcs him to
return fugitive slaves On the other sup
position, in conscnting to stand MS Governor,
he offered himself TO take such an oath, IL
his iellOwciliZens should elect him. Now
If Free Soicr, who takes such mn oath,
should he blasted with the swiltest light
ming, how swift ought the lightning TO he
for one, who hy his vote, asks his friend TO
take it, or for one who offers to take himself?
My moral optics are not, confess, sharp
enough to see much difference. Mr.. Mann
will please observe, TINT ] have not been
speaking of the Fhgiiiue Stare .4cf, whose
constituionnliy he and | should deny, but
of The constitutional Sldre clause itself; and
my whole argument refers TO that. II is
evident that, allowing, as MIR. Mann does,
that there is fugitive slave clause in the
Constitution, IL must he executed by some
body, IN some form or other. IL by the
Union, then, in voting for Hale, Mr.. Mann
asked his friend TO he, ia fact. Chief OF
United States Marslials aud foul Fugitive
Slave Law Commissioners But il that
duty belongs 10 The States, then, in offering
TO become n State Governor he offered lini-
self 10 become, virtually, Marshal or Com.
missioner for this purpose
To meet Mr.. Phillips argument fully,
slInll proceed upon his mpntulion of mean
ing, viz, that the Constitution does require
the delivery or return of fugitive slaves
lie has made the argument as personal as
possible. desired to make il impcrsonnl.
lie insists Upon being personal, aud so he
must try il once II ore.
First, all officers under The Constitution
of the United States take n special, aud not
general oatll-nn oath to perform the du-
ties of their particular offices, and not tine
duties of any other office. The oath lasts
only while he who takes it continues in the
office for which il was administered This
is clear; for il the same person is chosen or
appointed for II second or third lime, he
must renew his oath, at each new election
or appointment. So if an officer resigns, or
is removed or is mpenched, aud declared
incapable, he can no longer be arraigned for
a violation of that oath.
The oath is limited in regard to the acts
II comprehends, ms well MS in regard TO the
time for which il runs. After being sworn
into one office today, yet if ! enter upon
the duties of another Office tomorrow, ]
must he sworn again, mud so indefiniely,-n
new oath for new Office, and every man
for himself In the nature of things, il caH-
not be otherwise for how can one mnn
swear to perform another mans duties?-
Even after ! have sworn to support the
Constitution, il may he overthrown in n
thousand ways without my fault. The peo-
pie may successfully rebel, either by going
beyond voting 10 violence nr, what would
be just as fatal, by not voting nt all and
then This government is at an end. Hence
The oath only binds me TO do according to
the best of my own knowledge and ability.
Did it require more knowledge or more
ability than can command, must perlorce
break il.
The Constitution may even require many
things TO he done, which particular officer
a Congress, or President is not guilty for
emitting. They may have mUre TO do, than
they can complete; and, therefore, must
leave some Of il TO their successors. Ii is
said, that, under such construction, n man
may eyade his duty without guilt? Certain
ly not. The moment he consciously evades
his duty, or postponcs TO the second place
whnt belongs to tho first, guilt is incurred.
Hence, ell Mr.. Phillips's notions, and his
repetitions Of them, that one can hardly
take the humblest Office in il, [the govern
ment] without becoming parluker in the
responsibility Of every other are fanciiul
and baseless. Has the Judge in Massachus-
etts any responsibility for the acts of a
brother Judge in Arkansas; or, is post