The Winchester home journal. [volume] (Winchester, Tenn.) 1857-1858, 1858-09-09


would DO worse, for the reason that pos.
session would be no protection unless cou'
pied with the greatest amount of brute
force.
Veri,as argues further in substance that
the original kidnapper was guilty. OF a
very great moral wrong, and that this
wrong was perpetra,ed in the teeth OF
Gods command, "let the negro alone"
but says Veri,as, the master finds him
self with no faint Of personal concern in
the African Slave trade; upon this an ar
gument is made against the one and for
the other; how strangely this reasoning
strikes my mind, 1t is certainly unsu.
,horized by any ~ % OF aw and is as
certainly against morals but let us no..
ticc it in lega point Of view, In that
shape i, presents itself thus; the kidnap.
per, many years ago, went to Africa and
brought the slaves TO America. The kid.
napper according TO Veritas was a tres
passer, he continued to be lrespasser
during his travel from Africa to the Uni.
ted States. As irespasscf ne lands
himself AID African upon American soil,
and as a trespasser continues the negro
in bondage and at work. He, according
to Veritas, is wrong door in the be.
ginning, and in the ending Of his con.
nectlon with the negro he has violated
the law, but Veritas comes to him, and
from him purchases he negro, and by
virtue OF his purchase takes the rightlul,
legal possession OF the slave una f'eced by
that hemous sin Veritas so plainly sees
in the kidnapper. Now let US see into
what this position involves itself, CHE
whole wrong being in the first taker)
b. steals a piece OF property from c. who
lives in another State. b. had to be a
trespasser in order to steal; he removes
with that property into Tennessee and
meets Verltas, who, advised Of BIS oh
tenlion, purchases from him. Ofcourse
there is no wrong in VeIilas, because he
was not al the original taking and con.
version and did not know oft, Ergo, is
guilty Off wrong and not subject un.
I der the law to be made account for the
property he has thus obtained from b.;
and so away goes that fundamental
principle tina, "a man may follow his
property and recover wherever and with
whomsoever he may find it, there are vari.
Gus illustrations that nigh, be made,
showing the unlenabiity OF this argu,
ment Of Ncrias but it seems so wholly
unnecessary that will pass on.
Nerjlas and those who think with him
may say thai in my illustration of the
rule | do not give sufficient time be,
tween the original wrong doer and the
subsequent claimant. In reply TO which
| have only TO say that am wholly un.
able to see how any length Of time can
make a time a moral wrong a moral
right. | can not see how a right
conceived and perfected in wrong,
although the inception and perfection be
in one and the same person can ever be
made good and moral right by bare
transm ission however often that
Transmission may be for The simple reason
that all titles to property must OF neces.
sity be deraigned from the origna
source and the doctrine Of time and
change Of hands so length y discussed by
Vertas canno, ctTec, the moral Of the in.
stitulion of slavery, besides | think
man in rather gIim business relying at
the bar Of grace upon the statute Of lin.
itaIons.
Now, sir, if time is to be regarded at
all it is only presumption, and what is
the law Of this land upon that sub ject.-
1t is about this that after the lapse Of
a long time, the law viii leaves thing as
it finds it, no; that it assumes that that
thing is right by any means, but simply
for the sake Of quiet and therefore all
inquiry as to the right or wrong is cut
off or forever closed This is a rule of
human law applicable to human action
and has been adopted in the law by an.
ology from the statutes Of limitations. to
and quiet the rights Of property. So Mr..
Editor if slavery was wrong in its incap.
ton it is time We were getting rid Of it.