Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1859-02-17
Abolitionism Explained No. Is,

An important rule in the Interpretation Of
contracts, is that contract must never, if it
be possible to avoid it, be so construed as that
any one Of parties to it, assuming him to under
stand his rights, and to be of competant mental
capacity to make obligatory contracts, may not
reasonably be presumed to have consented to
| it.
The Federal Constitution is contract. The
people of the United States are the parties
The slaves are people Of the United States. 1t
will be in vain to say tho slaves are legally par
ties; for, in the first place, the Constitution
does not except them, and, secondly, contract
establishing government concerns all the peo-
Pile, since all must obey the laws. The Consti-
tuition does not and ought not to exonerate
slaves from the obligations Of allegiance, and it
is understood that if they rise against State
Governments in vindications of their natural
rights, the Federal Government is pledged, when
called upon, to put them down. Now, it is in
sane to suppose that slaves would consent to
have their obedience to State Governments en-
forced, without being protected against State
tyranny. And is it not the extreme opposite to
noble, manly, and just, for those who hold pow
er to take advantage of weakness, by forcing,
against the righteous terms of an instrument, q
construction which makes men property, SO far
as rights are effected but persons for purposes
of responsibility?
Another rule of Interpretation laid down by
the Suprmo Court of the Union is this "Where
rights are infringed where fundamental prin.
ciples are overthrow, where the general system
of the laws is departed from, the legislative in
tention must be expressed with irresistible clear
ness, to induce a Court of justice to suppose
design to effect such objects. - Cranch 800
Each of the three. reasons for which this rule
requires Irresistible clearness,' forbids the APP
plication to slaves of that part of the Constitu-
ton which relates to fugitive servants. The
application infrnges all the rights of humanity,
overthrows the fundamental principle of justice,
and departs from the general system of the laws
which regard men as persons and not as proper
ty. No wonder the Supreme Court Of tho
United States, in its first application of this
clause to slaves, felt troubled with difficulty"
Another rule is, that we are never unneeessa-
rily to impute to an instrument any intention
whatever which it would be unnatural for either
reasonable or honest men to entertain.
We are in the habit of landing our fathers
our construction of the Constitution would be
sufficient to fasten upon them the mputation
due to knayes and fools. The idea Of harmon
izing principles of such mortal antagonism as
liberty and slavery, 50 as to " form more per-
feet union could originate only in the wisdom
of Ounces Would men of common sense un-
dertake to secure the blessings of liberty by
Confederation of States which should regared
as sacred, the right of those same States to re-
duce the people to slavery? Or would states
men of tolerable sagacity mako slavery consti-
tutional in one State and unconstitutional in
another? Whether we have improved upon
our fathers in true political wisdom, is more
riots, we could presume them honest, we might
perceive from the Constitution, that they did
not understand " Southern rights as opposed
to the rights of humanity, 50 we'll as we do
They never dreamed that there could be zeal
substantial rights in conflict with natural JUS.
tice. 1t required the advancing light of later
generation to know that that may be republi
can form Of government, which authorizes 8
small portion Of the people to enslave much
larger portion. |. SMITH.