The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-08-20

CT II, review the platform of the Republican
party calmly and fairly, and by whatever party
name you are now known, you viii be con-
strained to say, If these are youc principles,
/, too, am Republican"
From the Spring field Republican
THE EXTINCTION OF SLAVERY IN MAssA-
CHUsETTs.
Emory Washburn read a paper I.spon this in
teresting subject before the Massaf Srsetts His
torical Society, at recent meeting The arti.
Gle is too extensive for our columns, but W. at
tempt to reproduce it in substance,
Slavery was not abolished in tS,s State by
special law, but by the decision o Z the courts
that it was inconsistent with the tn of rights
and with the higher law of eternal ustics. The
judges of those days had not learrseA to scott
at the Divine law, but unanimousln held, with
blackstone, that any laws against he laws of
natural justice are void, and thai !sws uphold
ing Slavery are against the laws ofgaature.
Judge Lowell, member of thu committee
for drafting the Constitution, int oduced the
first article Of the Declaration of ehts, for the
purpose of rendering Slavery uno Institutional
in Massachusetts,. This article, fols,wing close
ly the Declaration of independent !, is as fol-
lows:
"All men are born free and eat u, and have
certain natural, essential, aud unalienable
rights among which may be recko led thssight
of enjoying and defending their yea and lib
critics; that of acquiring, possessis &, and pro-
tecting property in fine, that of seeking and
obtaining their safety and happine ,s."
| That human Slavery could nos any means
exist under this broad declarazic D, was seen
then as clearly as now, and the de isions of the
courts we're given in accordance 18th it. But
Slavery was not abolished by tie ;rst decision
to that effect. The decisions a'set<ed only the
particular cases brought to the ttsntion of the
courts, and Slavery gradually expired under
the influence Of law and public opinion against
it.
The first case noticed by Nc Dashburn is
thatxp James rs. Lechmere, in st9ch the plain
tiff, Snegro, sued his master ;of assault and
battery, and for imprisoning and holding him
in servitude. The Suffolk CoErt of Common
Pleas decided in favor of the tea ter; but the
slave appealed, and the Superior yourt decided
in his favor, giving him his liteiy, and dam
ages besides.,s This was in 1855, nearly two
years before the famous decision 4 Lord Mans.
field, that made Slavery imposs bl in England,
and the decisions seem to hi We been based
Another case was that of % orlt Walker ps
Nathaniel Jennisor, commence itthe Worces.
ter Court of Common Pleas in 1871, with sew
eral ether suits involving the asa e questions
and the same parties. Caleb trfng and Levi
Lincoln--horored and venerab ,anes-were
counsel for the negro; Gov. Gu vas the chief
justice. The decision was, tina tie negro was
entitled to his freedom. This ass was carried
up TO the Superior Court, whese the decision
was reaffirmed. Both of the co insel for the
slave, though neither of those fott the master.
and one of the Judges of the inferior court, and
all the judges of the Superior Corr who sat in
the'cese, as well as the chief il st sc, had them
selves been members of the CT nv antion which
formed the Constitution, and ~ have under.
stood the intention of its frameI pom subject
that had 30 often and so receftl been agita.
ting the public mind. And II eli decision as.
sumes more than ordinarily authoritative
character inasmuch as it utferi hot only a
judgment founded upon the Iint dage of that
instrument, but speaks the len iment which
dictated that language itself
Mr.. Washburn has in his pose sion the brief
used by Mr.. Lincoln in arguing he case, and
furnishes the following valuable Fnopsis of the
argument
The counsel for the master tres.ed his ri hts.
among other things, upon the ISL wing points
In the first place, that the neg o vas a servant
by his own consent, and there or the defend.
ant was liable for enticing him a.say.
But to this it was answer d., that if such
were che case, there must be g In evidence of
that consent, either express or inSled, and the
terms, of it must be understood. Besides, some
term of time must be agreed hpAn for if he
consented to be the plaintiffs SCI rant, and no
time were agreed upon, it won ,e only during
his own will, which he may pu a q end to when
ever he pleases. But that, in fs Ct. there was
M Of -, he ~
In the next place, the pla mt T insisted he
was his servant by virtue of /, Ill of sale by
which he became the property IF caldwell, from
whom he passed to the plaintiff g husband of
his owner; and such a bill of Ale was produced
on the trial. And the genera ri Int of holding
property in slaves was sustain ed upon several
grounds. LIST. 1t is declared in Exodus, of a
mans servant, that "he is biz M ,ney."
But, said the defendants co I'M 81, it is indeed
said in Exodus that mans srvant is his
money, and from this the cou iss on the other
size argues in favor of Slavery. But are you
to Try cases by the old Jewisb.la )? This was
an indulgence to that nation. al l they would
only make slaves of the heatfe around them.
But even by their severe law hich required
an eye for an eye, and tootf. fts tooth, men
were not allowed to make sssy of a brother
They might not make slavf q him, though
they might hire him. In he present case,
Quork was their brother; tn " III had com.
mon origin, were descended fr I'M a common
parent, were clothed with ne Same kind of
flesh, breathed the same bres h II life, and had
q common Saviour.
1t was contended that the us om and usage
OF the country considered Sic very as right.
But it was replied, the object op to this is, that
customs and usages which a. against reason
and right are void. So far this question
depends upon the laws of Il state, any laws
against the laws of nature ar void. And that
laws upholding Slavery are s. ga ust the laws Of
nature, he cited | Blacklist ne, 81, l3l, 423
But is he slave by the law OF the country 2
If there are laws of the Ste e which derogste
from the rights recognised b. tie common law,
they are to be strictly const ue1. And such a
Law - contrary to the Const ntntion as we'll as
to the laws of nature. "ThF air of America is
tao pure for slave to breath !it:" The counsel
81 the other side insist thfs Slavery is a re.
Spectacle affair in this county. But the cues.
| usn to be decided was not fhether it was re.
spNetable or not. Has the defendant enticed
away the plaintiffs servsnt-Iss is claimed in
hi5 EritY When fellow-stbject is restrained
of his liberty, it is an attacl upon every other
sasjeet, and every one hasa fight to aid him
ihAegaining his liberty.
. What, In this respect, ar TO be the conse
suehces of your verdict? W III it dot be tidings
I Of great JOY to this community? 1t is virtual
| y opening the prison doo,s, and letting the
oppressed 60 freel Could the expect to triumph
= their struggle with Gre,t Britain, and be-
come free themselves, until ! ey let those 60 free
who we're under them2 w ,rethey not acting
ike Pharaoh and the Egypt ana, if they refused
to set them freef
But the plaintiff insists IL at It is not true. az
~
born free, for children arr Torn and placed
/ alder the power end cnntryl 1,f tha;r naranta