The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-04-14

. might DO saved lie granted. Believing as the
do, their course of action cannot be diferen
than what it is. viz: That they repudiate a
and every institution, political, civil, and reli
gious which not only does, but which nigh
oppose their church These remarks Nigh
be extended and il no ADLER pen takes it VI
with your permission | will continue them
taking the above for foundation.
J. p.
We publish the following, (which was de
olined by the Tribuns,) not because we concu
in its peculiar doctrine but We are willing q
see fair play-Ed. Era.
THE CONSTITUTION - SLAVERY - GERRIT
SMITH
FRIEND GREELEY: Accosting o friend The
other day, remarked, ave have at least on
firm friend of Human Rights secured for tn
next Congress"
"Who do you mean %
"Gerrit Smith" | replied.
"Gerrit Smith is a'fool and fanatic" wa
the gruf, contemptuous response.
"Will you be kind enough to tell me-" SAT-
/, "what principle he patronizes that would
be liable TO be mistaken for the bantling OF {
fool or what act of his life justifes your as
sertion that he is fdnGtiee"
Why said my friend, GAS to the last
am not quite sure but as to his being fool
that is clearly enough demonstrated by his ri
diculous position that Slavery is Illegal ant
unconstitutional
did not stop to argue the question with my
friend, further than to ask him if he had ex
amined the grounds upon which Gerrit Smith
PROCESSES to base this conclusion. He replied
that he had not, but was quite sure they were
untenabe, as the Tribune (his oraclel had SC
designated them. Here then, thought |, the
Tribune has done an injury, Internationally
perhaps, to a man of acknowledged mental
force and clear-sig htedness, by giving the con-
eluston simply to which Mr. Smith had arrived
without indicating the process by which that
conclusion had been found.
The Tribune has not refuted any argument
by which that conclusion is sought to DO sus-
tanned and has left its readers to infer that
none other than fools could adopt a conclusion
which itself so eomplaeenhy ignores
VIII you permit me to state in brief GER
tain Of the grounds upon which the "uncon-
stitutionality of Slavery" in the States is sup
posed to rest
You cannot but be aware that there are
large numbers of your fellow-citizens land the
number is rapidly increasingly who entertain
seriously this proposition. 1t involves stupen-
dous revolutionary issues If it be an error,
you must acknowledge it to be most danger
GUS ons-a nucleus Of anarchy-and see not
how you can justify your neglect of it. You
should in my opinion, if it is false, refute it,
and expose it to the odium which, as false
hood of the first magnitude, it merits; but if a
truth, manfully espouse and advocate it. If
the Evening Post makes loose or false state
ment in arguing the tariff question, you are
nimble enough in confronting it, and devote
league-long articles to set the question upon
its legs again. Surely, if the doctrine to
which am calling your attention is herosy,
it is one too transcendently important to be
dismissed with mere dogmatic denial of its
claims to attention. 1t threatens more than
Free Trade. Not furnaces" alone will this
close, but it will silence the hum of all labor
in this land! 1t is generally supposed that
the doctrine Of the "lllegality of Slavery" is
based upon the abstract proposition that
"Wrong cannot be legalized" Such il not
the fact Let us see.
/. Numberless decisions establish, incontro-
vertibly, tho proposition that Slavery cannot
exist but by sanction of positive ldrpD
2. 1t is a fact, admitted by leading South
ern men, as shall show-but otherwise shown
by a reference to the constitutions and statutes
of the slave States that Slavery has NOT the
/" sanction of pos,tire lac"
3. The aIllegality of Slavery" follows.
Slavery has received abundant "recogni-
ton " and regulation as an existing fact );
that is ALL
The Legislatures of the slave States have
not looked behind the fart Lord Chief Justice
Mansfield, in the Somerset case, in l772 de-
cided that slaves could not be lawfully holden
in the British dominions, of which this country
,ras then part. II the Colonial Legislatures,
previous to this decision, had enacted la ss
by virtue Of which Slavery had become legal
lied, it is evident that this decision virtually
abolished it, and dnn,slled those laws!
Has slaveholding become a legal business
sincel
Did the Declaration of Independence legal.
ize it,
Did the Articles of Confederation legalize it
Did the Constitution of the United States
legalize it
1t is not claimed, believe, by any, the most
rampant of the "Ohivslry," that either O
those instruments legalized the traffic in human
flesh. How, then, has it become legalized
traffic
The proposition that Slavery exists in the
Southern States without the sanction of posi-.
the law," will now be established upon the
testimony of Messrs Senators Mason and
Bayly, of Virginia.
Pending the so-called "Compromise Meas
ures," Mr.. Mason, answering certain objec-
tions against the Fugitive Slave Law, said, first
lin opposition to Mr. Dayton's amendment, by
which it was proposed to grant trial by jury
to the fugitive,) "a trial by jury necessarily
carries with it a trial of tho t0hole right, and
trial of the right to serpiee will be gone into
according to oil the forms of the court in de.
termining upon any other fact"
The sequel will show why Mr.. Mason shrunk
from so just an inquiry. "Then again" said
he it is proposed rs o part of the proof to be
adduced at the hearing, after the fugitive has
been recaptured, that evidence shall be brough!
by the claimant to show that Slavery is eStab-
lshsd in tho State from which the fugitive has
absconded. Now, this very thing in recent
ease in the city of New York, was required
by one Of the judges of that State, which case
attracted the attention Of the authorities Of
Md land, and against which they protested"
~ "In that case the State Judge went
SO far as to say that the only mode of proving
it was by reference to the statute book. Such
proof is required in the Senator'S amendment
and if he means by this that proof shall be
brought that Slavery is established by eristing
lars it is IMPossIBLE to comply with the re-
QUESTION, for no speh law can be produced,
apprehend, in ANY Of tho slave States. am
not aware that thsre is SINGLE State in which
the institution is established by positive iato ;!
Again: Mr.. Bayly, upon returning home
from the Congress rendered Immortality infa-
nous by the passage Of the Fugitive Slave
Law, in an address to his constituents holds
the following conclusive language to the same
point: We all know that Slavery was intro
duced into tho British Colonies of America in
absence cf statute, and solely under the pro-
lection y Of the common iap!"
Another view: II is claimed that the ri in