The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-06-30

~ L
common law has no authority in Kansas,
further than to refer to the Judges of the
several Courts m Kansas, who we under
stand maintain a different opinion. We
suppose they are as well qualified to
Judge in the premisesas We are, and pre-
sumo their decisions viii be quite as
binding in our Courts of Justice Lord
Mansfield, when deciding the Somerset
case was not making law, as Mr.. G. rath-
er gravely intimates. as he was not cloth
ed with legislative powers. His province
was to decide upon the laws as he found
them, and he arrived at the same con-
clusion that the Judges of the Supreme
Court Of the United States did more than
fifty years afterwards, that "Slavery is
so odions, that nothing caa be suffered to
sappOrta bitPosITIyE Law" Wearrived
at the same resultin May last. and now,
as if 10 put an end to tie controversy for
all time, our learned legal friend comes
to similar conclusion; and yet he shows
that 'sold Mansfeld's dictam" was pro-
nounced 1853 years too late to be good
law in Kansas. Weregretthat ourfriepd
made such an erro, as TO suppose that
Lord MANSFIELD was making law, when
he was only expounding the principles
which had existed to the .'time whereof
the memory of man ruHneih not to the
contrary"
But the opinion of Lord Mansfield is
termed by our pro-slavery correspond
ent a ..dieauna.'' a dit4m in law is
mere saying of of the Court, not relarent
to the question at issue, and hence has
no binding authority as precedent. In
this Somerset case, in which that "dic-
tum," according to Mr.. Christian, was
pronounced, some four millions of what
had formerly beea recognized as property
was involved, as was the personal liberty.
either directly or indirectly of millions of
human beings. If that decision and the
result was a mere "dictum" of the
Court, what would be the consequence
of a decision at length on the question?
Our friend claims that the Constitution
of the United States recognizes the legal
existence of slavery Tnis we most pos
ltively deny being the case. The Con-
stituiion of the United States, when prop
erly- interpreted according to the spirit of
its trainers, will emancipate every slave
in the nation. The Constitution neither
sanctions nor even tolerates slavery, on
the contrary it emphatically declares that
''no person shall be deprived of liberty
without due process of law" "Due
process of law" is understood by all le-
gal gentlemen as an indictment and tri-
al by jury for some alleged crime, and
verdict and sentence in open Court. -
For this definition We have the authority
of Judge Story and Justice Bronson.
who both apply it to this clause of the
Constitution of the United States. No
slave has ever lost his HJeHy by this pro-
cess. The reader will remember, too,
that this clause is an amendment to the
Constitution which, Ike codicil to a
will. "overrides. displaces. and abrogates
whateyerin the original instrument might
have been inconsistent with it.
The Constitution of the United States
goes further and virtually forbids the
States to maintain slaves, by declaring
that "No State shall pass any bills of at
tainder or laws impairng the obligation
ofeontraets;" nor grant any tide of no.
bility.".
1t has been very justly remarked that
slavery is an .'attainder" because il "at-
taints the blood, "and imposes disabilities
on the child, on account of the condition
of the parent. 1t establishes an order of
nobility By the same process, and by
conferring hereditary or transferable
powers of subjugatioH and control upon
one class or order of men over another
class, their hereditary interiors and sub
jects. It not merely impairs, but posi-
lively annihilates the power of making
contracts.
The Constitution. instead Of recogniz-
ing the institution of slavery, has plovid-
ed measures for its complete extirpation.
The object of that instrument which was
.sto form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, pro-
vide for the common defence, promote
tAe general ,uelfare. and secure the bles-
Lsings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our
posterity," can never be attained while a
single person is Invested of his political
rights, unless by "due process of Law" !"
Conscious Of that Eactits founders made
provision for extending .sihe blessings OF
liberty" to all by providing thai ''tha
Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended
in time of peace % ''It is this writ. -
says our friends nanesake, theannotator
of Blackstone. which makes slavery i'm
possible in England. !. It's proper appli-
cation would make slavery impossible
not only in Kansas but in every other
portion of the United States. Blackstone,
who appears to be fayoFite author with
four friend, remarks that s.The object Of
the writ IS to bring the body of the per-
son who has been restrained of liberty
into Court, who shaH determine whether
the cause of his commitment be just. and
Il