The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-08-31

A DIALOGUE BETWEEN An IMMIGRANT, LEARN
I'D In THE Law. AND AN AMERICAN CrTI.
ZEN
Emigrant. Mr.. have heard and read
much about American liberty, and have come
from Europe with view 10 make choice of
some location in this country for my future resi-
dence. find, as anticipated, slavery INDUCED
and practiced in many States Of the Union. an ID
/ have no desire TO locate among slaves win
thank you, SIR, TO loan me the Constitution of
the United States for examination, before take
a stand anywhere.
AnIeTIcdn. IL Is at your service, SIR. Here is
the original Constitution, and amendments af-
forwards adopted as part of the Constitution
EmigrGnt. thank you, sir. / will examine
and return It.
He goes out.
Afterwards, and on another day, he returns
with the book
EmigTGnt. Mr.. - am not able 10 dis
cover where any of your people obtain author
ity TO hold men in bondage. | have carefully
examined the Constitution and amendments
you were so kind as to loan me, and find
nothing that appears to have any bearing IA
vorable to slavery; but on the contrary, every
thing seems made to protect liberty.
AneTtoGn. But sir, when this Constitution
pendent each Of the other with regard to
their internal police, and most of them indulg-
ed slavery; and the Constitution was agreed
upon by the several States, to unite their
strength to defend, regulate, and control, those
matters and those phases Of interest common
to all the States, and not to other matters.
EmigrGnL But was not hberty-personal
hberty-common to the inhabitants of all the
States 2 It seems the people thought SO when
they adopted the Constitution; for they took
care to insert the provision that nc person
should be deprived of his liberty, but by due
process of law" and your people must have
invented q new kind Of slavery, if their slavery
Is By due process of law, or by any law what
ever. In ordinary slavery there is no process
Of law about it, but the strong arm and the use
of the lash.
American. There is one paragraph of the
Constitution that has been construed in sup.
port of slavery.
E"'igrGnt. What paragraph, pray, sir
American. That which treats Of persons
held to service or labor in one State, escaping
70 another. Under that, an act passed in 1850
called the Fugitive Slave Act, providing for
the compulsive return of such fugitives into
slavery by the United States Marshal.
migrant. And he's any court ever been
found to treat that law as Of any force
american. Single commissioners, certain
class Of homemade judges, and some real
judges, have go decided, and cent the victims
into interminable bondage.
EmlgTGnt should not have expected that
men sworn to support that Constitution would
have passed such law, or when enacted,
treated IL as Of any validity. carefully exanlin-
Ell thot paragraph, and discover no power Civ
en- to Congress TO legislats upon that subject at
ali Ii appears to be an undertaking on the
part Of each State, what they will DO in case
Of such fugitives. But it has no connection
with a5y clause clothing Congress with power.
lt appears to be judicious provision for the
resaprio1 Of apprentices bound to service, aud
cOnTicts condemned to labor for given period,
who escape. They are held TO labor By the
laws But there is nothing in that paragraph
Of the Constitution that describes any part of
the character Of a slave To call him q per
son. appears az odd use Of language; for that
free, whatever 1t be, that makes him a slave,
makes him dumb chastel. Nothing is OR can
bs due from him. He can owe nothiog He,
and all he scans to have belong to his owner
To construe sentence which clearly describes
person, sentieht being, capable of contract
ing debts, in A legal sense owing service or
lab0r-t9 c0natrp8 this to mean dumb chat
tel, must be strange perversicn of the English
language
Amsrseaa. However, the Supreme Court of
the United States tbs deTnier resort in ell lih-
gctsd questions under the Constitution and
laws of the United States, have decided that
slaves are comprised in that paragraph Of the
Constitution.
Emigraut Yves that decision, or anything
suggesting power 10 the court to making such
decision, in the Constitution VIXEN tho people
voted to adopt it
american. | do not know as there was; but
IL Is said that the fran.ers of the Constitution
that Is, the members of the Convention that
scat forth the Constitution 30 be voted UPON
and adopted or rejected, by the poopls--uaJe--
stood that She paragraph In question would be
construed to mean slaves.
EnigrGRt. Do you mean, sir, that the people
were 40 duped, rs, when voting to adopt
written Constitution, In plain, unequivocal Ian
guage, they were voting COR an unwritten one;
and when voting FOR the most thorough guard
20 liberty, they we're voting one.sixth of the in.
hsbiianis on. from the panoply Of this liberty?
And can 1t be supposed that those who made
the draft and sent it out to the people, intend
81 TO uSs terlas thus to dupe the peoplee
american | Hould not suppose any such bad
intention. Many of the members were patri-
Oh Of The Northumberland men. Undoubt-
edly the majority of them intended what was
written, according to the natural signifoasion
Of the terms used
immigrant. How do you suppose the people
understood IT, when they voted 20 adopt it 2
AmericGn. | suppose they understood what
was written for them to vote upon, in its plain,
natural sense
Emlgrdnt. What would be the effect Of
decision Of the Supreme Court, that the para
graph above referred to includes slsves-would
such decision be considered binding, as If it
was so written in the Constitution!
Amer1cGn. | cannot cay as to that. Such,
however, would be urged, as its necessary eff.
feet. Surely, the judge who should mako such
8 deeision would be apt to treat it as settling
the question.
EmtgrGnt. If those judges are candid. honest
men, would not their eyes and ears be open to
see and hear the truth, though that truth
should show them TO have erredl
american. They are all honest men, to be
sure; but circumstances frequently create q
strong prejudice. We hardly deem it dishon-
est for man to lean towards what he calls his
own Interest-Ee term it prejudice.
EmIgTGnt What circumstance would lead
to suspicion of any such leaning or preju-
6ice9
American. Nothing, perhaps worth naming,
though majority of the judges of the Supreme
Court belong to slave States, and generally
have doae, and are chiefly Shareholders. That
might lead to suspicion that they might feel
prejudice favorable to the institution
Immigrant. Would not this be q method of
amending CT altering the Constitution, without
the action OF the People upon it, as provided
II the CONSTITUTION itself see not why, If
the Supreme Court, by their decision, can make
persons, in the abjye-oitad paragraph, mean
sidues they may not, by another decision, make
tie word liberty IN the preamble mean stduerg,
and thereby wholly change the object of the