Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1857-01-24

several of the nations of Europe, where they are
organized, maintained and directed as a part of
the political machinery, they may properly be
called institutions of the State. Our private
acadamies, in the same way, are denominated
institutions, but not State-institutions, a. the
public schools in some States are, because they
are endowed and controlled by the State. Nor
because q thing is sanctioned by the law, is it
therefore an institution of the State. Lotteries
are sanctioned by law, in some States, but lot
teries are not State institutions. Houses of plea.
sure in France are regulated by law, but they are
not an institution of the State in France
Slavery is sanctioned BY the laws of our Southern
States, but slavery, for the same reason, is not
IN institution of the Southern States. 1t is
simply, rs we have said, a usage of Southern
society, which the laws of the State permit. and
20 very small extent regulate, but which the
laws do not ordain, either an element Of political
life. or as part of the public administration.
The Legislature is an institution of the State,
designed to interpret laws and declare penalties
public schools are often institutions Of State,
designed to train and educate citizens-and the
ballot-box is an institution of State, designed to
secure an expression of the public will. But
slavery is not of the nature of any of these. 1t
is an entirely domestic status or relations mode
Of existence in which individuals stand to each
other, like partnership, or like contract for
labor, or like an incorporation for special pri-
vate purposes. In the State of New York the
Jaws guarantee to every individual the right to
buy and sell certain things, as in South Carolina
The laws guarantee to certain class the right to
buy and sell certain persons but, in either case,
the laws are only regulations for the management
and good order of society, and not the creation
of public or political function.
In giving themselves out as the "Southern
States," the shareholders commit the same mis-
take which has been made by aspiring classes in
ali ages, and, if they do not refrain, must
ter the same destiny. The old priesthood of Rome
proclaimed that "we are the church"-but the
reformation in Germany demonstrated that the
congregation was the church. Louis, the Four
teenth, said, 81 am the State,' but the descend
ants of Louis in the bloody experiences of 1853,
discovered that the people had something to say
about that. In the same way, the shareholders
desire to say 'swe are the South We are the
Southern States" but let them beware of the
end! For they may rest assured that the good
sense of the people, South as we'll as North,
will soon discern, if it has not discerned already
the country, nor q public authority of the cOun-
try, but only class of citizens residing in par
ticular parts. Now, as such, their rights, what
ever they may be, are wholly local, wholly indig-
enous, wholly municipal, having force and vail
6ty nowhere but in the States where they are
expressly recognized. Slavery exists exclusively
by the law of its locality, and not by natural law,
or by international or universal law.
There are certain great personal or moral rights
which are secured to a man, under all jurisdic-
tions-wherever he may be in the civilized world
md which tho courts of the civilized world will
protect. But slavery, or the right of property in
MIN, is not one of these. In our schemes of jur-
isprudence, there are three great branches or di-
visions of law: first, internal or municipal and
State laws. peculiar to each State-second, con-
stitu,ional laws, peculiar to the United States as
a federation-and, third, international laws,
which regulate, politically and judcialy, the in
tercourse of different nations; and it is from the
first alone that the right of property in man IL de-
rived.
No one pretends to deduce it from international
law, and we therefore dismiss that branch of the
argument without further word. But does 1t
enure from our constitutional law, as some main
tain? We assert not. Our federal constitution
recognizes peculiar relations, subsisting between
the inhabitants of certain States of this Union,
but it knows nothing of slavery, as property in
man. 1t respects all the local laws of all the
States. and will maintain all rights acquired un-
der these laws, within such localities but, in its
own sphere, the constitution designates and acts
upon all human beings as persons. So far is it
from regarding any men as chattels, that it ex-
pressiy excludes that idea. Knowing human be-
ings only as persons, it is impossible that it should
know them property, for the two ideas is es-
scntially incompatible; 50 that the constitution,
in choosing one Of these ideas necessarily rejects
the Other. 1t refers to ''certain persons held to
servce," and to ''certan inhabitants, not free, )"
i.e., not politically citizens; but it nowhere
refers to ''slaves" as such, nor to any class of
men as property. How could it, without stultl-
flying and annulling itself? How could the
trainers of that instrument, who were no fools,
who understood the force of language and Of
logic, egislate for men as men in one clause, and
for men rs property in another, when property
and manhood are two fundamentally opposite
ideas? In it's preamble, in its numerous provi.
sions and prohibitions, and in its glorious amend
ments, the constitution prOclaims and defends the
liberty and rights of humanity; it organizes a
free government; it guarantees republicanism !;
it shelters the freedom Of speech, the freedom Of
action, the freedom of the press, and it nowhere
imposes the seal of bondage on any class of be-
ings. All that it does, in that direction, is to
recognize the laws of each State, as applicable
within that State, but as valid nowhere else, un-
less expressly accepted. If slaves are held as
property anywhere, the laws of the State where
thev are held are responsible, but not the c0nsti-
tuition of the United States.
Nothing being International nor constitutional
slavery is, then, local or municipal; and, as
such, It has been almost universally recognized
by the courts of the slave States themselves
"Slavery," says the Suprems Court of Missis.
sppi, (Naiker, 42), sis condemned by reason
and tie laws of nature, and can exist only by
municipal regulation" ''lt is right" says the
Supreme Court of Kentucky e Marshall, l7O)
s.existing by positive law of a municipal charac-
ter, without foundation in the law of nature, OF
in the uawritten or common law" But, being
local, it has no right in the territories In refus-
ing it admttance there, you simply refuse to give
it universal validity to q private and peculiar
usage; you infringe no right of any State, nor
of the people os any State. As q state, and az
people, the rights of each remain intact. You
saw to all men, to those who are so unfortunate
rs to live where slavery is tolerated. to others,
that as people, as members of community, az
citizens of State, they may 90 where they
please-into the territories or not, they please
but as Shareholders, as peculiar class, they
will not be recognized there. Their status or