Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-06-11
WHOLE NO 4O2.

IN an independent nnd seperate form.
Mr.. Davis reiterated his former position,
and said II Free Sellers were involved, 10y
voting, in the guilt of slavery, Mr.. Garrison
aud his children were equally 80, by their use
of the post-otiicc, paying taxes Sc.
Chas. G. Burleigh, in nn able and logical
speech, answered the remarks of Mr.. Davis.
Mr.. Bnrleigh argued the pro-slavery churac-
ter of the U. 5. Constitution und Govern
ment.
Rev. David A. Wasson, of Groveland,
maintained ibnt, whatever pro-slavery he ia
the U. s. Constitution, he did not support
those evil things to which, by the very con.
diiions Of his vote, hc was known to he OPP
posed. A free. soil vote, said he, is known
every where ns q vote against slavery, and tho
person giving i: cannot he understood by any
intelligent man as an accomplicc with slave
holders. As an illustration of his meaning,
MIR. Wasson said, that on entering an omni-
bus, he might see n notice posted up in il
that, ns payment for his ride in it, he must
not only give the usunl sum of money, but
must also kiss the drivers toe. lie should
hold himself under no obligation to do il.
Stephen S. Foster, Of Worcester, said he
would like to ask two questions of the last
| speaker-he snid, Let me ask the gentleman
| il, previous to entering the omnibus, we were
required TO lake an oath TO kiss the toe of the
driver, would he take tie onl, provided 10
did not mean to do the thing? Again, How
is it TO he Known, by the other voters all owe:
the country, what parts of the Constitution
the gentleman mems to support, aud what
he does not mean to support?
To the last question, Mr.. Wasson said that
it must be known, all over the country, that
every free soil vote is n vote against slavery,
aud against every pro slavery provision in the
fha MI
Wasson il is believed did not reply; il so, il
was not understood.
G. Brnmhall, of Boston, in reply 20 n ro-
mark of MIR. Wnsson that the shareholders
feared Horace Mann much more than they
did MIR, Garrison, asked what Free Soilcr had
ever had fue thousand dollars offered for his
head, as was done IN the case of MIR. Garri-
son 10y the Legislature of the State of GeOr,
gin.
MIR. Garrison argued against the nssunp-
that the ballot is giit from God, which
man cannot refuse TO use. Mr. G.. declared
that every ballot had, in fact, q bdtei IN il,
inasmuch os the governmental sustnin which
il is given, relics upon physical force, in tho
last resort, to execute its purposes. Mr.. G.
wondered to hear Mr.. Wnsson exalt so dis.
| proporiionntely the value aud power of the
ballot, and speaking so slightingIy of talking.
OF that weapon, the tongue, upon which
] apostles and relormers had relied 10 save tho
world. Did those men accomplish nothing
| in their day? Did Jesus, who had no ballot,
| effect nothing? And the apostles? Aud
Luther and his unenirunchised associatesi
Did not all these men glory in the power
which lay in the .too'ishness Of preaching?
Voted, 10 refer the resolutiOns presented
by ii. Z. Wright, TO the Business Commit
tee.
The Conn iiiee on organization reported
list of officers, who were unanimously cho.
sen.
Adjourned to the afternoon.
AFTERNOON.
Mr.. Henry C. Wright, snid the voters were
the governing power of the nation, and every
man who votes at the polls is bound to up
hold the governing power. The Constitution
is his bill of instructions to his representa-
Iivcs,-the President the Supreme Court,
and Congress. The Constitution tells them
within what limits they nro to keep, in their
official capacity. lie did not mean ihat tho
Constitution was to he law of life to tho
persons, in their private capacity, but that it
was hill of instructions for them 10 follow
in their official capacity. If this construc-
ton was set at nuught, the very idea Of a
| constitutional government is absurd.
| 1t WINS stated That each man was TO inter-
|
conscience, and then vote only for so much
of the Constitution MS his constitution as his
conscience approved. Well, his friend gave
Que set of instructions to his agent,-his
conscience allows one thing Mr.. Mann nl-
I lows another; Mr.. Sumner allows another.
| Each voter gives his own construction of tho
document, 10 his agent, and demands that ho
shull execute his Instructions, aud no more
| il he executes more thnn his instructions,
! the voter is not TO be held responsible for
what his agent does over and above his in
strucIions! This, they would see, annihi-
ues the very idea OF constitutional govern
ment. Was each individual TO interpret il i?
Was The agent TO interpret it for himself
aone' Or would they provide the inierpre-
ter to decide what the Constitution means,
aud then hold their agent TO abide by it?-
The latter was the plan this nation had
adopted.
Mr.. Wasson said is il sin, is il n wrong
for me to Use what powers ! can under tho
Constitution, while | do so under proies
against Whatever evils il toleTaies? lie did
not think il was. Some remarks had been
made IN reference to mental reservations
lie ngreed with the resolutions under dis
ciIssion, that il was the duty of every man TO
make his position thoroughly understood
] Bur, having made himself thoroughly under
Stood no dld not see That there wns any men
tai reservation in the mutter that could DO
sgmniised MS Jesuilical.
lie regarded il MS great loss, as a great
wrong to give up power which rightiuly
belongs to lls,and which we exercised against
an evil which we abliorred. What right hud
any one TO surrender such power? Let Il
not he supposed that the Constitution created
that right; 1t only recognized, and provided
form under which that form should be ex-
ercised. The point that he urged was that
wo we're under obligation 10 uss that right,