The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-11-23
LETTER xxi.


| JUDICIAL SERyIIhTY - LEGISLATIVE USURPA-
TON PRETENDED POWER OF LEGALIZING
SLAVERY. DEsPoTTC, DISORGANIZING, ABB
| SURD, AND IMPIOUS-
| To the Friends Of american Liberty:
The obsequiousness of the judges to the Leg
islatures that appoint them, and their consequent
indifference to the people, (whO ought to have
retained the appointing power in their own
hands, has led to many inroads upon the rights
of the people, and to corresponding usurpations
| by the Legislatures and the judges. The trial
by jury has, in this way become mere farce.
BY the Magma Charta, the jurors were made
judges of the law as well as the evidence, and
were accordingly S,oorn to perform that duty
to "render verdict according to LAW and evil
| dence." And in judging Of the law, they were
expected to Judge whether the statute was con-
| trary to common law. the law of nature, the law
of Justice; and if they found it to be so, they
were to set it aside. King John objected to
this feature of the Magma Charta, the most
important one it contained. "Why!" (exclaim-
ed he,) You put it in the power of any twelve
Of my subjects, sitting as jurors, to repeal any
act of King and Parliament!
Yes, may it please your Majesty" replied
the barons,) that is it, precisely. That is what
we want, and are determined to have" And
they got it, for that generation and for time
afterwards. By stealthy innovations, the Judges,
appointed by the Government, made inroads
upon the rights of the Jurors, first expounding
the law with official authority, las the clergy
preached, in those times,) expecting the jurors
to follow implicitly their teachings; then telling
them that they were judges only of the facts,
and not of the law they were sworn to admins
ter; = then getting the uror's oath changed
accordingly, Tin some Courts and finally an
nulling the common law itself, by holding the
statutes to be paramount! Yet we still keep
up our idle Boosting Of our common law, and
of our right of trial by jury! In thus country,
strange 10 tell, this subversiOn OF the main
defences of liberty has been more complete
than in England, where the Courts still hold, at
least in theory, the paramount authority of
common law over the statute. Even III this
country within the memory of some of us, the
right Of the jurors to judge of the law was
unquestiOned. And we have heard of the Judges,
by whom that right has since been under
mined, Boosting, IN their own select circles, the
success Of the achievement!
In my last letter, fellow-citizens, / showed
you how the dogma of our modern Courts of
the paramount authority of statute law over
common law, overturns all our natural and con-
stitutional deiences of freedom. 1t is a doc
triue that makes the Legislature omnipOtent
The power that could overturn natural law,
most assuredly could find less difficulty in over
coming the feebler defenees of constitutional
law, which are but artificial, except so far as
they declarations Of natural law.
From this general view of that despotic dog
ma, let us turn now, for Illustration, to that
particular phase and manifestation of it 1.-THE
most marked that can be conceived) which
assumes the power of the Legislature, in its
supremacy over natural law, TO deprive man
of his natural right to himself to his own bones,
muscles, sinews, and intellect with their pro-
ducts by reducing him either to real estate or
to chattels personal.
If the Legislative power can do this, it can
do anything and everything, in a way of over
throwing liberty, and of removing all the de-
fences of human rights. The greater includes
the less. y mans right to himself includes all
his other rights. If the Legislature or the
Courts can take away that, they can take away
Oh. Our rights of property are nothing more
nor less than our right to our own earnings,
and the right of our fathers Whose property we
inherit) To their earnings. But our right to
our earnings is our right to the joint product
of our intellects, bones and muscles. And our
right to these is our right to ourselves, and to
exemption from the condition of real estate
and chattels.
If the Legislature can make property of a
man, it can take away his right to his property.
1t must, of necessity, do the latter in doing the
former. If it can DO this of one man, it can do
this of another man--of each man-of every
man.
If you admit, therefore, that the Legislature
can legalze Slavery, YOU admit that it can le-
galize the confscation of your own property.
that it can transfer all your property to your
ncXt-dOOr neighbor. 1t can certainly do this
If IT can give to that same neighbOr a right of
property in you yourself And it can certainly
do this, if it can give yOu right Of property in
that neighbor, or in any other human being.
The politician, therefore, who maintains or
who admits the possibility of legalizing Slavery,
virtually maintains or admits the right of the
Legislature to take away all your property and
give II to your neighbor-nay, its right to reduce
you to Slavery and give you away, acih your
property, to that neighbour Do you think your
rights secure in such hands?
The right of the slave to his freedom, the
right of the millionaire TO his capital, the right
of the poor widow to her scanty dowry, the
right of the day laborer to his wages at night
fall, the right of the farmer to his crops, and
the right of the shoemaker to his shelves of
shoes, all rest on the same basis. The security
OF all these rights rests on the paramount au-
tborlty of natural or common law over Legis-
latiye enactments. If the Legislature has pow
err to legalize Slavery, it has power to take
away all these rights. If it is the duty of the
Courts to recognise the legality of statutes en-
acting Slavery, it would be the duty of the same
Courts to recognise the legality of statutes Ia
king away all those other rights. An enactment
dividing all the smaller estates and little posses
sions of the poor among the rich, and making
the poor the slaves of the rich, would then be
legal; and a counter enactment, the next year,
ha mill 70 nd 1,vi-
ding all their wealth among the loafers, would
be equally legal! The Democrats, when ma
lority, might legally confiscate the property of
the Wings and ensave them; or the Wings
might, when majority, do the same by the
Democrats. The blue-eyed men, if majority.
might plumber and enslave the black-eyed
and the black eyed might organize Know
Nothing" conspiracy againstthe blue-eyed. And
all would be equally legal The blacks, upon
the same principle, might enslave the whites, and
the same Courts that nOlo maintain the legality
of Slavery, (even loithOn statute, by the by,l
would then be obliged to maintain, as they now
do, the legality of Slavery!
The dogma of the possible legalizdtioR of
SIaceTy removes, therefore, all the legal secu-
rites of all classes of men. 1t breaks down all
the defences of human rights 1t confuses all
our ideas of law. 1t takes away the definition
of Civil Government. IL is eq,ticaleRt TO u con-
ceSsioR that Government may do anything IL
pIeGses. At the same time, it is equivalent to
a denial that Government rests upon any solid
or permanent basis. To-day, it may be one
thing tomorrow, another and thenceforward,
far as security and protection are concerned,
just nothing at all 1t embodies the essence of
Despotism on the one hand, and of Anarchy on
the other. IT takes on the form of the one or
the other, as the Government is welded by the
few or by the many.