The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-06-15
ICoFYnIGHT SECURED By THE AUrHoE.I
For the National Era.
TILE LEGAL TENURE OF SLAVERY.
LETTER XIV.
THE COLONIAL LEGISLATURES had NO Az.
TH0RITY TO LEGALIZE SLAVERY.

THORITI 10 LEGALIZE SLAVERY.
To The Friends Of Am.rican L,JeTig:
have proved, by ths testimony Of slaveko!i
ing and slavery sustaining juris:s, that there
Was no Legislation in tits country le2aliz!nr
Slavery, during The Colonial period and for Il
long time afterwards. In tho appropriate place,
shall sustain this by the testimony Of slave
holding and slavery-sustaining Statesmen, ard
shall prove also, by that testimony, the eddi-
tiOnal fact, that up to the year $50, the date
OF the Fugitive Slave Bill, there had been no
State legislation, lcgalizinC Slavery. Bat mus
now call attention TO another consideration, IN
respect TO Colonial Slavery
Gould it be fh0wn thlJ tbe CClcuilI lae.sir-
i1n, from tle frst ce.tIen.nt % The Coioaies.
had explicitly, unGquiyocai!y, and d.h1:ta!v.
euthorized ald defined Slavery, 70 far SO tho
employment Of any conceivable words and
phrases could possibly do it, there could have
been no validity in such legislation, nor any
legality III the slaveholding attempted to be
leaaized By it for the plain reason that the
Colonial Legislatures had TO constitutional
power or authority 20 leg;.lize Slavery but, oa
the other hand, were under constitutional obi
cations end RESTRICTIONS which would have ion
dertd nugat0Ey any enactment OF that chgrac-
ter A few simple propositions viii render
this point clear.
l. Slavery is condemned by the law Of ma
ture, and can exist only by positive enactment
This is held by the Southern courts This was
our starting point in the beginning Of the pres
ont discussion and this il the foundation CT
my argument in thin letter
?. My secnnd position is, that the common
law Of England, 80 Ear, at lea.t. as this subilu5
IS C Ccernad Is identioai with the Law Of ma
ture No Intelligent and honest lawyer will. I
tdini-, disputo th;s
"Tho lGw vh;ch supports Slavery and or
poses Liberty, must necessarily be condemned
"a cruel, for every feeling OF human nature al
vccctes Liberty --Forttsc us, de lapdibus kec1E
chap. AZ p. 1Ol.
Those rights which God and nature hay. c.
tablished, ana which are thelcfro called na;u-
rGl rights, such Gs life aud LIBERTY. need not
The d5d Of human ial5S, 10 be more a. # 4ctual'y
vested II EVERY MAN, than they are. Neither
do they derive any additional strength, when
declared by tie municipal lave to he inVio'a-
bic. Ga the contrary. 40 HUMAN LEGISLATION
HAS POWER TO LBRIDGE or DESTROY THEM,
unless the owner ,hall himself commit soluu
act that amounts 20 q foIfejtrre of them.7-
Blackstone, vol. 7, p. 81. Lord Chief Justice
Holt ssye, that by tho common law, 'n0 man
can have property in another is an eeknowl-
edged axiom, and based On the common laSl
dttinuioH Of property, viz: The subjects of
dominion or property are tsings, as cOntra-Gis-
tingaished from persons
3. Ny third position is, that this common
law Of England is g fundamental part Of tho
Britl.h Constitution, limiting the powers Of tho
King and Parliament Just as tho Constitution
Of the United States limits the powers OF the
President ond Congress. So that the King and
PsTl ament are inhibited by the British Con
sti!utoa from iegaliEing Slavery. Should they
attempt TO do 80, 1t would be the d1ty of ths
courte to declare such enactments unconstitu-
tionai and void
g It is generally laid down, that acts of Par
hsIncns contrary 70 reason a;e ycid.n-Bldck-
stone, -
when en- scs Of Parliament Is against COM
mon right or reason, or Tepugnsnt or mposs-
bic 10 DO porfor1ed, tho common law will
control it. and sdjudgo such &c. 20 be voidn-
Coke's Reports, 49,
No National Government can confer on
It's subordinate Colonial ct Territorial Goyern.
ments, any power or authority which it does
not itself pOs,e-s. For example, ou- Federal
GOVERNMENT having no constitutional power
80 establish form Of religion, or confer titlea
of nobility, or sbridge frsedctn of speech or or
the press, cann0s confer on It's Territorial Gov
ernments any authority to do So In like man
ner, the British Government, having no cont
tutionsl authority to iegslzs the ela,s trade o..
SiaTory, could not confer on the Colonial Iao;--
latures any power 20 :eSal.ze them. Had the
bdti-h Governnient attempted 20 do this tho
attempt would have been aa abortiye cne- 81
far as the legality Of The slave trade aud SIa.
very are concerned.
g. But the British Government never did
confer or attempt to confer on tie Colopial
legislatures the power of legalizing Slavery
NO one will pretend this. no one can point ~
any grant, charter, or other document, IN