Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1858-12-23
BUCHANAN AND THE SUPREME COURT.


BUCHANAN AND THE SUPREME COURT.
At the opening of his Kanzas argument, in
his recent message to Congress, the President
says that "the Supreme Court of the United
States had previously decided, that all Ameri-
can citizens have an equal right to take into
the Territories whatever is held as property
under the laws of any of the States, and to
hold such property there under the guardian
ship Of the Federal Constitution, so long as
the territorial condition shall remain" That
such is the decision of the Supreme Court, and
that such is the doctrine of James Buchanan
and the Democratic party North, are equally
true; while the Richmond Enquirer, the re-
preventative of the same party South declares
that african slavery is a moral, religious, nat
ural, and probably in the general, a necessary
institution" This is the line of argument
which is now adopted at the South, while, at
the North the morality and justice of slavery
is not asserted, but its consttutionaity is, and
it is claimed by that large party whose leader
Mr.. Buchanan is, and which now holds the
reins of government, that the Constitution
guarantees the right of Shareholders to carry
their slaves into every territory of the nation,
on the ground that slaves are property under
that instrument. This latter position is equal
ally new and dangerous with the other Both
set at naught the selfevident rights of man.
At the South they deny them outright AT
the North they claim that the Constitution robs
- IL
they reach the same result. Both at the North
and South, It'll now fundamental doctrine of
the Democratic creed, that man may be reduc-
ed to the condition of a chattel in all respects,
under the guarantees of the Constitution If
so, then every where that the Constitution is
the supreme law, Shareholders may carry their
human property, and the whole force of the
Government must protect them.
Such is the bred Scott decision, such is the
sentiment of President Buchanan, and the
Cincinnati Platform.
There is but one clause in the Constitution,
which the Supreme Court, the President, or
any one else, has ever protested to believe sus-
tanned this doctrine But the Article, which is
thus relied on to prove that that instrument
guarantees property in man, proves no such
thing. 1t is Art. 4, Sec. 2, and reads ''No
person, held to service or labor in one State
under the laws thereof escaping into another,
shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
therein, be discharged from such service or Ia
Dor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may be
due"
Now, let us briefly consider the doctrine of
this section
l. 1t calls the parties concerned, persons not
slaves, nor property, nor chattels, but persons,
and, ofcourse, entitled to the rights Of men, and
not subject to the conditions of brutes.
II. 1t asserts that these persons are held to
service or labor under the lars Of the States,
and, not by virtue of the Constitution, nor nat
ural right 1t merely recognizes the existence
of certain State laws, without endorsing them,
but implicitly condemns them.
Ill 1t provides that, if the party escapes, he
shall not be discharged from service. This is
equivalent to saying, that, if he enters another
State in any other way, he shall be discharged
if he escapes he shall not be discharged but
he goes by permission, he shall be. Thus the
courts decide.
" The fact, that the section provides, that
the slave, escaping, shall not be discharged,
proves that if there was no such provision in
the Constitution, he would be discharged in all
cases. If this provision was necessary to pre-
vent his discharge, then, without it, he of
course would be discharged. But, the provis-
ion applies to only single case, that of per-
sons escaping from service. Then, by its ex-
istence and limitation, this section proves that
according to the sense of the Constitution
property in man is exceptional unnatural, and
the creature of force The Constitution does
not provide that horse, escaping from his
owner, shall not be discharged, and yet he is
not discharged. No such law is required, for
the natural relation of horse is that of proper
ty, and he is held in equity but man is held
only by force.
V. This section ordains, that the person
escaping shall be delivered up to whom
service is due. Who is foolish enough to
speak of property, curing service? The very
form of expression implies the existence of
rights, on the part of the fugitive, that he is
party to a contract, that he is a person, and
not property.
vi. The section says, "to whom service is
due" 1t is not the person that is due, but his
services merely. Any endorsement of the right
of property in man, is carefully avoided, and
the claim of serUice, only, recognized. But in
all cases oflegitimate property, the thing itself
is owned, as well as its use. Should you say,
81 own the services of that horse" the very
form o. speech would imply, that you did not
own the horse, but that he belonged to another
So, as the Constitution speaks alone of owning
the services Of certain persons, we must con-
clude that it implies, at least, that these per-
sons own themselves, and that it is impossible
that a man should be owned by any other man.
So far then, as common law, the judgment of
the race, the law Of God, and the Constitution
Of the United States are concerned, there can
be no property in man. The Constitution
merely recognizes the fact that, under State
jurisdiction, certain persons are held to service,
and provides, that in one contingency, alone,
they shall not be discharged, if found in other
Stntae