New-York daily tribune., 1857-10-02

of tho more extravagant of the points, which will
be found at length in another column thought it
necessary to encourage the Court and the audience
to swallow them by setting the example of swallow
ing them himself. Evidently feeling that some
such example was required, he thought proper to
declare that, though retained tO take side in this
case he really believed all that be said. Yet We
cannot but have 30 much charity for Mr.. O'COnor
as to suggest that in this assertion tOO he was but
playing The lawyer; that it was made in a purely
professional sense, as part Of his duty
occoIdirg 70 Lord Broughams standard Of pro-
fessonal duty-tO client with desperately
bad ctse; and that in fact, it would be
great injustice to Mr.. O'COnOr as q man to
Judge bin, either intellectually or morally, by the
standard of this argument. Indeed our respect tor
Mr.. OConors position at the bar forbds us to sup
pose that if he had really been speaking from his
own convictions he could have fallen into su;h
complete confusion of ideas, could have involved
himself in such net Of contradictions, and could
have rested his ease upon an argument which tO'ai-
" fails to meet the facts of the case. II was one
poir. very elaborately put by him, that Judges
have no power TO m.dify t,e law by construction,
wide or narrow, and still less power to Introduce
any pew law or create any new rights, that being
exclusively the province of the Legislature.
Grant this point, and how fatal does it be-
come 10 Mr.. O'ConOr's whole case He himself
confessed in the course of his argument, that ne
gro Slavery in this country was not introduced by
legislative enactment. On the other hand it crept
in by use which, in time, the Courts recognized as
law 80 that according to the very view maintained
by him,ef it rests upon basis, not Of law, but of
judicial uhurpatOn.
AUo,ber point very deliberately maintained by
Mr.. O'COnOr was, that the law of nature, about
which so many jurists have spoken and written,
and which is so often employed as an argument
against Slavery, is all 1ummery a mere chmera Of
tie imagination, a figure Of rhetoric; but having
thus demolished the law Of nature, Mr.. OCOnor
proceeds forthwith to employ this very nonenH;y as
the basis upon which to erect the edifce of per-
petusl negro Slavery. Nature, he tells us, iDte5ded
negroes for slaves, and white for masters; aud
on the strength of this law of nature, be asks the
supreme Court to recognize the righ.'uness Of
Mistiess Ltnmon's claim. Tbcn again, as to the
COZ struc.ion of statutes, Mr. O'Con,r totally re.
iecs the received doctrines Of liberal instructions
an6 strc, constructions according to the views and
ipclnations Of the Coury aid having done &c. pro-
ce ds to ask the Court to fly in toe face and eyes of
the clear ard pltin meaning Of ihe act Of 1917, as
mo ife0 bJ the act Of Sil, lest if that act should
be eDfcrced according to its terms 1t might prove
an Inconvenience to trayelog Shareholders. That
act provides tha. no person hsld ss slave shall
"be imported, introduced, or brought into this
"S.ate, on any pIeteDse whatever After lectur.
ing the Court On the improperly of attempting to
give TO provisions Of law any other than their obv
Gus meaning, Mr.. OConor turns round and asks
the same Court to stretch point or two, 80 as to
hold, for reasons Of policy aud comfy, that this
provision does not include the case Of slaves brought
into the State with intent to be taken on. of it,
But, without multiplying these particular cases
| in which Mr.. OConor mas succeeded in arguing
himself out Of court. we come now to point which
covers the whole ground Mr.. OC0nors entire
argument il complete non S'9ui'ur. Admit every
point that he makes, and still be has no case-all
because bis conscience or his policy drove lin to
make distinction between enslaving white men
and eDslaving negroes. He fully admits that
Slavery, in general sense, is detestab'e. For 8
man to pretend to hold his equal in bondage is hor
rid He W. uldnt think of asking the Court to up.
hold that For Engnsbmen to undertake to make
slaves of Erehshmen, or even Of Irishmen, is
villain@ Us. Mr.. O'Conor, thinking himself, per.
hsps, in Tammany Hall, was highly indignant at
tie ere idea. But negroes, he holds, may be
made slaves Of and not only that their natural in
feriorty requires that they should be made slaves
Of But while be thus goes in heart and hind, for
enslaving negroes, he is exceedingly careful,
with all the ostentation of Pontius Pilste
himself, to wash his hands of the atrocity of en-
slayiDg any body else. II is not with him ques-
ton of color-so he emphaticsly declared. Not
only white men, but red men, yellow men, even
black men, provided they are not negroes, have
risbt to liberty ard cannot be enslaved 1t is only
negro Slavery that be- pretends 10 be lawful n any
of The States or entitled to comfy in the State
| New-YO,k
But unfortunately for Mr. o ConOrs argument,
there is tohing 10 show, in the papers before the
Couit that the eight persons claimed by Mrs.
Jufet Lennon were negroes. 1t is stated, to be
sure, that they were held slaves in virginia: but
Mr.. O'Conor, too squeamish for his case. insists
that it is only negro Slavery that is lawful so that
if they were not negroes, Mrs. Lemmons pretend.
ing to hold them as slaves was an atyocous ont.
rage. il is also stated that they We're colored
persons" But Mr. O'CoGor empha,caly declared
that Il Was not with bin question Of color but of
race Suppose they were colcred, that is not a term
applied exclusively 10 negroes They might be pure
Ipdjars of whom TIE Slavery has been prohibited