, 1859-01-29

KnNFxx TH1K1.
In my previous numbers ! have endeavoredt to
snaszs the operation Of thought, Of which the
word "Psoperty il the exponsnt--to ascer-
tain what ID meant BY property, going beyond
lts mere verbal definition. 1t was found to in
rol7e not merely things, but csrtain relations
between persons and things establishing owner
ship. These relationa exist by arrangement OF
nature and cannot be snnulled though thsy may
be ignored or violated BY individuals or By
governments. Though the triumpha Of civili-
zation hare not penetrated the wastes and re-
cesses Of Afric., the physical lava upon which
they depend are As pervading and powerful ~
iu Europe Or America and though the heartof
the native has not been warmed and humanized
by the genial influences Of nature'a moral laws,
We must not conclude that these laws have sus-
pended their authority snd jurisdiction. The
reciprocal relations between created things
which have been established by human laws
nay be annnl!ed or modified BY those laws.
Not 60, when the seal has been set by the hand
Of 0nnipotence. Man maJ csptare and subdue
to his use the buffalo OF the plain and the law
will protect the property thus acquired against
the infringement Of usn, but he may not sub
due even the rootdigger Indian, and hold him
by physical force as his property, with or with
out the sanction OF protection Of la1-nuch
less may be claim the sanction and power OF
law to sustain and aid him in this outrage On
the degraded helpless savage, whose rights, .
whatever they may bs, should be protected BY
law with more serupnlous regard to JUSTICE
By reason Of The very ignorance and helpless
ness Of the pitiable being whose destiny ID
placed ia our hands hy no act nor wrong OF his
own. 4 similar outrage on the African u plsa"
cy under our laws-the penalty death! Render,
those are obvious truahs-pause and reflect, AND
let their teachings be stereotJped On the tablet
Of your mind.
What are the "rights'' guaranteed BY the
Constitution With reference 10 "slavesf'-or
atric.lg speaking with reference to persons held
10 service or labor under the laws Of . Ssates
T6e Constitution informs ~ In the lanKuage
always been remarkable for the felicity OF its
arrangement Of different subjects. and the per
spicuity aud appropriateness Of the language it
uses" Tbs Constitution guarantees to the
slBve States m enumeration Of three ffshs Of
their slavss in adjusting the ratio OF repre-
sentstioH, azd Presidential votes There is no
controversy about this i; and We hear nothing OF
aggressions with regard to it. ThiB secures
them sectional" property representation.
This Is "eqRallty," of course! But euch is the
provision OF the Constitution.
Next, we ind the Constitution provides that
persons held to service or labor in any one
State. under the laws thereof, escaping and
seeking refuge in another, shall not bY reason
Of any law OF regulation thereof be released
from such service or labor, but shall be given
up on demand of the person 10 whom such ser
vice or Labor may be due. The language is in
deed perspicuous and appropriate. 1t expresses
Just what it means, and absolutely explains
itself. No honest. nnprejudieed enquirer for
truth in it's purity can raise plausible doubt,
il he seek the meaning IN the language OF the
Constitution itself We see the meaning It does
not contemplate nor name any others than per.
sous held to "service or labor under the laws
Of State )" md - to them, only provides for
their being given up. on demand when they
escape aud sre caught in another State. There
is no room for dispute, unless we suppose that
What the Constitution ssys, only expresses what
it does not meRn-that its plaio, specific and
unmistakhble provisions are to be construed By
the rule Of contraries and are to be understood
as sort of floating buoy warning oH the water
craft from rocks near By, but leaving them to
find the channel elsewhere a8 they best can.
Judge Tarey saFa, :" Ii any Of its {tbe Con-
situations; provisions are deemed unjust, there
is mode prescribed in the Instrument itself BY
which it may be amended {query-is it to be
amended by an extra-judlclal opinion OF few
partisan Judges y "but willis il remains ural-
tered it must be construed noH a. it WAS under
stood at the time Of its adoption. 1t is not only
the aame in words, but the eame in meaning,
&c" The Ordinance Of 1857, containing the
clause excluding saTery from the Northwest
Territory, MAS ratified By the first Congress that
met after the adoption OF the Constitution and
some Of the members Of that Congrsss we're slso
members OF the Convention that formed the
Constitution. No warning voics bid them be-
ware! This meets the case, aud removes a.l
doubts, if there were room for any. Clesr rs o
poo! from \ mountain brook. wherein We see
each pebble, and its position, is the language Of
the Constitution and its obvious meaning; and
it is most manifest that TuueY labors in - bred
Scott" to stir up sediment to dscolor the Wa
ters-to becloud what was most clear. He says
":he right of property in slave is distinctly
nud expressly affirmed in the Constttu ion." If
this we're true, be would have shown such dis
tinct affirmation, and thus have settled the
point, without incurrin2 the scorn and contempt
50 deserscd7 attaching to him as the just judy
ment Of the American people for the Infamous
.0oinion Of the Supreme Court in the bred
Scott case"
Again, says Tsney. 'the right to traffic in it,
like any ordinary article OF merchandise and
rrop-sty, wea guaranteed to the citis ems Of The
United States. in every State that might desire
it, for twenty years." This, With his deductions
from it, is gross perTeraloD, and begging Of
the question. What though Congress was de-
MED the power to prohibis the States from in
Producing certain ''psrsons," until after GER
tain period? What Of it! Does that annihi-
late the nheraut difference between persons and
things? If "persons' are admitted OF intro.
duced and brought under the operation of "ahe
laws Of State" for q certain period Of tina in
the past, does that nnnul, OF alter, or add to
the present operation and effect Of the only
clause Of the constitution which guarantees to
the stakeholder his right to the return OF bis
slave if be escape into another State? But if
State mar under constitutional guarantee, in
troduce certain persons during certain period,
and hold them subject to their State laws within
their own jurisdiction, does this necessarily iu-
volve right 10 make them ''chattels' or cattle
md to compel other sovereign States to sink
their own sovereignty, disaTow and dishonor
their own principles, and treat these ''persons"
ns chattets too, IN hsgraut violation Of their own
constitutional guarantees? This carries the
rights Of the master into all the free States il
contenptuous disregard Of any constitutional
prohibition by the States-or ID other words
carries the slave codes of the slave States, with
all their consequences, into every tree State
ard We have no means whereby to saTe our.
selves from this biiEhting incubus. lis a right
under the constitution. according to Tauey. and
the great universal pansces 'Popular So.er-
eiKnty" cannot save usi The argument of Ta-
ney logically and lrresistbly leads TO this-or it
IS senseless and means nothing Thus it is be
isbors to stir mud in the pool lie "pa,ers
With US in double sense" until be atultides the
constitution substitutes other and ambiguous
language in lieu Of the "perspicnous and appro-
PIRATE language" Of the inatrument-exlacts
from the amblEuaus substitute the new doctrines
his masters (the Pro.S!avery Democracy order
ed him to bring torlh-aud then gs4veiy pro-
nouuces it to be the true construction Of the Con
sti.ution, and impndently shrustsit at us a 6aaf
settlement Of the question.
But, let US admit his proposition-his first
standpoint aztec be eparted from the Consti
tution-to Wit: 'the Constitution recoguiz.s
slaves as property what then. Have you
impaired new po1er to the Constitution BY This
new form of words9 and what ara No 10 M
dsrStard hr o reroxui1irx alaxea pxaaaztu =,