Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-03-28
Correspondence.
For the Bugle.
LAW is FOUNDED IN JUSTICE.

tain his legal right, &c. &C., have been iterated
reiterated, until our ideas are in utter confu-
sion. Ordinarily, and very unthinkingly, we use
the terms justice and law anonymously, and yot
if we ask ourselves, soberly, il all laws are just,
or if justice is always obtained by law, we are
to give q negative to both.
The present is q time when men specially need
to separate the two ideas in their minds; for now
the decision of the United States Supreme Court
in the S colt case is under discussion. From law
yers 20 clodhoppers it is praised or denounced with
the freedom and confidence that pertains to a
commonplace subject.
1t may be doubted whether the assailers, or de-
tenders have thoroughly considered the grounds
for appreciation, or reprehension; better ascertain
are the duties of q judge, whetl.er of q su-
perior, or inferior court2 The question does not
relate TO his duties as a man but as n judge. For
what purpose is he appointed to the station ? Is
it to expound and enforce moral law ? Or to con-
form to, and comply with, constitutional require.
ments and Legislative enactmentsP IT both, what is
he to do when they conflict There may be cases,
and such there have been, where the judge could
not fail to r ceive on which side the right was,
but the law was on the other, and unless he could
find some quirk some legal ~lonp,hole through which
to make an escape. he is compelled to do violence
to his highest convictions. The man must be
merged in the Judge; every thing of true, genuine
selfhood must be sacrificed to official position.
Roger fancy well knows, as he has always
known since his appointment to the seat he occu-
pies, that he was not selected on account Of his
ethics, or his catholicism, but partly from p~artizan
favoritism, and partly from his judicial reputa-
ton; and knowing this he had no duty, but to serve
the party to which he owes his election, by his
Interpretation of a constitution made to order, for
their especial benefit. 1t will scarcely be denied
that he has fulfilled the duties he assumed with
great fidelity.
Bear'in mind that fancy was not placed on the
Supreme bench on account of his religion, or his
morality but his legal acumen, his ability to
show what enactments were, and what were not,
constitutional lawyer, how could no have decided
otherwise than he did. in the Scott caset lie did
not intimate that the voluntary removal and de-
tention of bred out of the sphere of s~lavery's ju-
risdiction ought to have exempted him from coer-
cion back to bondage. One idea preponderated,
and stiles all other ideas in his mind, namely that
slavery and its protection was the prime element
the leading motive and object in framing the con-
ptitution, and sophistry will be puzzled TO confront
him.
fancy takes the broad ground boldly, and with
out any hypocritical whining or cant about it. that
the Constitution is an unmitigable, iIveterate pro-
slavery document and sustains his position unas-
sailably by reference to the importation article and
the rendition clause, which latter was rcenacted
verbatim in all that is odicus and henious, in the
famous fugitive law.
His arguments 60 to prove that persons, in whose
veins African blood flows, are not, never we've
and never can be, citizens under the constitution
They Az unanswe rable;and are corrotorated by ,ht
action of all legislative bodies and judicial tribu
nails eve. since that instrument was issued.
Every body knows that it is the Interpretation o
a document which is authoritative; in the 3ne be
fore US, the provisions and the phraseology amply
sustain the Interpretation which has been given
and acted upon up to this hour. True, some Iea
friends of liberty seeing with clearness what thu
instrument ought to have done for humanity, have
pleased themselves with the hope that advantage
might be taken of some of it's positions so as tC
make IL serve IL RIGHTEOUS emu ~ iuet, ulteT w
lapse of a half century. They ae worthy men
but not lawyers, or statesmen. In their zeal fol
the advancement Of the right, they deny the pro
slavery character of the constitution because thu
word slave cannot be found in it. If they are
pressed to tell whom the States were permitted tt
import, and on whom they were to pay $40 duty
if required, they reply "if it means African slaves
the provision expired by is own limitations. They
mistake; nothing of the kind is to be found in thu
instrument. 1t does say that Congress shall no
suppress the trade til 1908, but not a word abou
its discontinuance after that date. Not, then, BY
the constitution, but by an act Of Congress, tina
which on one day it would have been treason, to in
terrupt, on the next, it would have been piracy, t.
practice.
Again, ''those who owe service or labor shall b
delivered up" cannot mean slaves for they can
not owe, never having contracted with their claim
ants in person, or by attorney. True, but then i
is not the enlightened moralists perceptions OF thu
right, tina, we are considering, but the meaning o
the charter deed of a nation protesting to furnish
an ASYLUM for the oppressed: and how have theil
constituted agents in every department understood
this clause? When have they failed to carry i
out as they would have done if the word person
had been substituted with that of slavei And
when have their constituents ceusured them Tor
their construction or action?
Again it is ayerred, that W the people ordain"
&C., &C., sets the question at rest, and so 1t does SO
soon as we ascertain who 1--WE, the people" are.
Were the half million slaves an integrant part in
that Wei Did they establish liberty for them
selves and their p~osterity? Were any of the un-
chattelized colored population delegates to the con-
ven,ion which framed that world renowned docu-
ment? Did they send their representatives.
Direct and truthful answers to these questions,
will remove all ambiguity and uncertainty in the
matter. 1t is evidently premature to suppose the
constitution made before the We were convened u
make it; and rare juvenility to suppose its appli'
cation was retrospective no less than prospective.
Again, mo person stall be deprived Of liberty