The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-05-03

TIoN ACCORD WITH THE PREAMBLE" DUE
PROCESS OF LAwn-Concuded.
To the Friends Of american Liberty:
If any one should hang cavil upon the words
member of the State" alleging that slaves are
not members of the State, there are three readf
answers to the cavi. ~ The Constitution Il
the instrument of the people of the United
States" as before noticed. a. The clause
before. us does not say, "No member of the
State" 1t says, "No person." Judge Bron.
sons Commentary does not alter that fact. J.
is cited here merely to show the meaning q
:" due process of law" (3.) But before there
can be any slaves, as the cavil pre-supposes,
there must have been shown to have been a
due process of law" depriving them of liberty.
If it be said that the clause before US restricts
only the action of the Federal Government, and
not the State Governments, demand the evil
dence of this. The rule of "strict construc.
ton " confines US to the ,cords, and these do
not restrict the application to the Federal Gov
eminent. The rule of the Supreme Court ire
curing us to find the meaning IN the words,
and forbidding us to give construction so as
to infringe rights" overthrow fundamental
principles" or depart from the general system
| of the Government, unless " the intention be ex-
pressed with irresistible clearness ~ permits US
to make no such limitation And assuredly
'the spirit and intent" of the instrument, as
indicated by contemporary literature and histo-
ry-the Declaration of independence and Jet.
ferson's Notes on Virginia-could not favor
such limitation. =
Nothing could be more absurd than to suf-
pose that the people of the United States, whc>
under the Articles of Confederation, found {,
necessary to organize Federal Governmer
to secure their liberties" intended only t
guard themselves against the action of that Go,
eminent, and not against other sources of injt
ryt Equally absurd would be the supposition
that a National Government, whose Constitb
ton is " the supreme law of the land, should i,
in that same Constitution, restrict itself froD
committing outrages upon the rights of the PEG
pie, which, nevertheless, it permitted the Stat:
Governments to commit
And nothing short of the application of this
restriction to both the State and National Cow
ernments would bring the specifications of the
Constitution into harmony with its declared OBJ.
jects in the Preamble. Nothing short of this
would viudicate the estimate the people make
of their Constitution, as their bulwark of free
dom. If it stops short of this, the provisions Of
the Constitution do not tally with its protes-
sions in the Preamble. 1t promises more than
it performs. 1t leaves the liberties of the peo-
pie insecure.
Now, just make up your minds, fellowciti.
zens, whether this article of the Constitution,
which our fathers demanded and obtained as
an amendment" is of any value to you and
your children, beyond mere lean disclaimer,
on the part of the Federal Government itselrs
of any rightfnl authority to take away your lib.
critics. Is it of no further value to you, in &
way of protection9
Ii 1T is not, then cease Boosting that the Co.
| eminent Of your country secures the rights {
the people. Acknowledge frankly that if frot +.
any quarter, besides the National Governmef-
itself, your personal liberty is invaded, that Go,
eminent affords you no protection or shelter
Proclaim it to the kidnapper, the man -steale !,
prowling round your habitations, that if the J
seize upon you, or upon your wife and your Ii :
tie ones, your proud title of an American cir
izen is no protection at all to you-whatevei,
as citizen of this or the other State, you mas
lay claim to! Understand for yourselves, teacA
your children, and proclaim it to the world ths.
the american Government, which you live ut>
der, does not and cannot protect the America .
people, or any portion of them, from chattel er.
slavement! tr-t- -
You must needs do this, fellow-citizens, or else
you must agree with me that this article of the
Constitution imperatively forbids Slavery, ard
demands the liberation of the enslaved-not Of !
of whom, from the days Of John Haw kins aE
of the Dutch shaver in James river, was evT !
deprived Of liberty by due process Of Lascs :
Neither this article nor any other part Of u !
Constitution makes any distinction Of race {
color. If it protects any it protects all. Unlei :
it protects all, it protects none.
If it be said, las has sometimes been said J
that any mandate, sentence, or order, of a jude 8
or court, is due process of law so that VIII =
ever is decreed slave by the Courts, is slave
/ answer: ~ The authorities already cite
prove that this is not "due process Of law
There must be Indictment, trial by jury, Goa
viction of crime, and sentence according to ves-
diet of jury, in order to 3" due process of law"
answer, a. That it was in order to guard
against just such despotic proceedings of coure
that the due process of law" with its habefs
corpus and its jury trial, were Incorporated intS
Magma Charta, handed down to us in the cofh.
mon law of England, and thence engrafted, "
special :" amendment" on demand of the pc :
pie, into the Constitution of the United State
To adopt the aforementioned explanation f
|" due process of law,n would be giving up "a
the time-honored safeguards of freedom, al I
placing us back where King John and his ven v
courts held the people, before Magma Char !
was extortsd from him. / answer, (3.) III :
deprivation of liberty contemplated by "df :
process of Law, in punishment for crime, is NJ
chattel enslavement, which the common la
and the Magma Charta neither authorize nj