The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-07-12

strued and applied, would be as little to their
purpose The shareholders have no right to the
undue apportionment of Representatives allowed
to them by an act of Congress. That act ought
to be repealed. The Constitution does not war
rant it. By the testimony of Mr.. Madison, the
Constitutional Convention sOOuld not and did
not allow their draft of the Constitution to ad-
NIT the idea "that there could be property in
man." And. of consequence that Constitution
could not and does not establish warrant an
apportionment of Representatives founded on the
false assumption that there is property in
man.
The shareholders have taken good care not to
let that portion of this clause that by their con-
struction) would impose upon them dispro-
portionate taxation, be applied for that object
Why should the non-slaveholders allow that con-
struction to deprive them of their equal repre-
sentation in Congress? 1t is easy to tell why.
It is because here, as in everything else per
tanning to the Constitution as bearing on Sla-
very, they are befooled with the fiction of
legaized Slavery, and consequently construe the
Constitution in favor of the Shareholders, and
against themselves No people can admit the
dogma of legalized human chattelhood, or Of the
possibility of its legalization, without parting
in some way with portion of their own man.
hood.
So far, however as the apportionment Of Rep
resentatives is concerned | might afford, for the
arguments sake to let the shareholders call
Slavery either legal or illegal, just as they please;
and in either case, might accept their state
ment, and prove, by that statement itself that
this clause of the Constitution does not entitle
them to any such advantage in the apportionment
of Representatives as they have hitherto claimed
and held. If they admit that Slavery is illegal,
they relinqush the claim, of course; for then,
A. bar N
construction that would shift the basis of repre-
sentation on to another foundation. But if they
insist that Slavery is legal, it must be maintain
ed by affirming the correctness and validity of
their own Slave Code. according to which, a
slave is chattel," and consequently is not
person, and cannot be counted as such, in any
enumeration under this clause. They may hang
up their apportionment claim on either horn
of the dilemma, as best suits them. IF they will
have slaves, they must content themselves with
such as their own Slave Code describes-and
those are not persons"
The utter incongruity of this clause, as COM
monty construed, with the general scope and
aim of the Constituencies letter. its spirit, its
preamble, its specific provsions-is so strongly
marked. and so evident, that such construction
is not to be admitted, unless lin the language
of the Supreme Court the " intention be ex-
pressed with irresistible clearness," which is the
very reverse of the fact. just look at it. for one
moment. Here is a Constitution, that, by its
Preamble, 1.-THE "key to right understanding
of it, was formed to secure the blessings of
liberty" and FIVE other things incompatible with
Slavery. In no less than eight of its express
provisions, the instrument goes directly against
Slavery-especialIy does it guaranty republi-
can government, and prohibit an oligarchy or
nobility. Then, (by the common construction
of this clause, it bases the Federal Government
upon an antirepublican ratio of representation,
it sets up and perpetuates an odious oligarchy
Of shareholders, clothed with political powers,
tending strongly to bring the nation under the
control of one sixtieth part of its inhabitants
Such is the inevitable result of the interpreta-
ton against which l contend. And l appeal to
all the rules of legal Interpretation known to
civilized man, while protest against so unjust,
so absurd, 80 disgraceful, 80 mischievous a con.
struction. | close by citing the rule of Chan
cellor Kent, (which is as applicable to Constitu.
tons as to statutes:) 1.-The intention of the
Legislature is to be deduced from the title" Tor
the preamble,) sand eUery part of the statute
taken and compared together. Kent, Vol l,
Lecture 20. And also the rule of Blackstone,
that zone part of a statute must be so construed
by another, that the whole may, if possible,
stand. "-Btockstone, Vol. Title, Lars of
EnglGnd-Sutect, !" Statutes" When these
rules applied to this clause, the proslavery
construction of it will vanish.
WILLIAM GooDELL.