Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-08-13

same position, and though the compacts they made
with their fellow citizens were very different, the
result is the same, the legal rule of conduct the
same, uis to obey all laws which each individual
believes to be right, and to disregard oil others.
Such q conclusion seems to us the sheerest alb
furdity. But let us try it on, and see how it Ats.
We will suppose that each government passes a
law that oil slavebolding shall be treated as a PEN
~ftentiary offence. DR.. Soutbside, who happens to
be q member of government No. l, declares that
he has recently investigated this matter Of slavery,
and has come to the conclusion that IL is q Divine
institution, and that the law enacted, instead Of
prohibiting what is wrong, prohibits what is right,
and planting himself upon the doctrine of the
Sentinel, he declares he will not obey it. "You
consented to abide by the will Of the majority"
says government No. l, land expressly provided
that slavery should not be tolerated. Keep faith
with the government or leave it obey the laws,
or else suffer the penalty uncOmplainingly."
The members of government No. 8, would &C.
cupy the same position as those of No. l under
tLe laws referred to, but this would not be the
case with members of government No. 2. They,
although agreeing as did the others, to be govern
ed BY The will OF the majority, limited the action
VI tnsg HlhJorty DN DrONluinB tuhb tuo u W
not to interfere with the practice Of slaveholding.
And their plea is, not that the laws prescribes
what s wrong and prohibiting what is right. but
Simply, that the act is unconstitutional
Again each government passes a law declar-
ing that all forms Of Christian worship, Protestant
or Catholic, Evangelical or ~IIerotical shall be
alike tolerated and protected. and that no other
than the Christian religion shall be thus protected.
The minority members of government Mol how
ever Protestant and Evangelical they might be,
and however much they might consider it a viola
sion of moral right, could not justly complain
of such a law, because the action of the govern
ment is not limited in this respect. But the mem
bers Of governments Nos. 2 and 3 could refuse
obedience to it because it was an unconstitutiona
enactment-bu unconstitutional for very different
reasons. Demonstrations in No. 2, because there
the government is required to su ppress all forms
Of religious worship except those of evangelical
protestantism Unconstitutional in No.3, because
there interference in the rights of conscience in
the matter of worship is Expressly forbidden. We
repeat then, that if the logic of the Sentinel be
correct, the obligations of citizenship as
sumed by the members of these three governments
are virtually the same, and their action is not to
be affected in the least by the governmental COM
pacts they have entered into with their fellow
men, and government is itself a gigantic h~umbug,
and of no earthly use except to create Offices and
emoluments for a favored few.
We presume the editor of the Sentinel would as
readily justify others in refusing obedience to q
law which they believed to be wrong, as he would
his own disobedience, not requiring either thai
every mans conscience should be cast in the same
mould in which his was run, but each judging and
deciding moral questions for himself. In some Of
tho States there is a law compelling the observ
aucelof the LIST day Of the week as the Sabbath.
Many believe that law to be wrong, some because
. they the 9TH day as the Sabbath, others
because they consider such an enactment as ar
interference with the rights o.! conscience. Does
the Sentinel justify such in a violation of the law
and would he exempt them from an inHiction of it,
penalties ? If SO, why have the law? Those who be
lieve il right to observe the day, will OF course oh
serve it without the application of a compulsory
law, and if you excuse the class referred to, 'al
other persons" will probably constitute a very
small lumber. In some States the sale OF intoxi
oating liquors is forbidden by law, and many re
gard this as much a violation of the rights o
property as it would he to prohibit. for instance
the growth and sale of tobacco. to say nothing o
articles which are not hurtful but beneficial.
Does the Sentinel advise such to persist in sellip.
intoxicating liquors, and does he declare the,
should be neither fined nor i'm prisoned for violat
ing the law against it?
Some of the States prohibit polygamy, yet Their
IRE thousands and tens of thousands-more per
haps in Utah than here-who claim that sue
practice is heaven-ordaiped and patriarch-sanc
tioned. Does the Sentinel advise the believers j
the doctrine to commit bigamy2 There is a mul
titude Of men who believe that land monopoly j
a sin, and many who go further, and declare tha
ownership in land is a violation of the law of right
State laws protect such ownership and such mo
nopoly. If the editor of the Sentinel has land
we hope he will show his consistency by urging
those who deny his right to it, to become the user
of his soil if he has none, then will he not ad
wise them to squat on his n~eighbors acres? d.
Webster's definition of munich pal law is -
rule of civil conduct prescribed by the Supreme
power of a State, commanding what its subject
are to do. and prohibiting what they are to for
bear" This definition of law is sanctioned b.
universal acceptance. end nowhere is the detni
lion BY Blackstone which is quoted by the SENT
mel, received as it there stands in its isolation, no
'ecen By Blackstone himself; and in the illustration
we have presented, we have endeayOred TO SHOW
how absolutely impossible it would be to have
government Of human laws, where each individual
is left at liberty to receive or reject all Legislative
enactments according to his conviction of thei
moral character.