Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1860-07-07

tion or the protection Of it's privileges, but not
where it is required merely in aid Of legislation.
The difference is worldwide between what is re,
quired for protection and what is required merely
for aid and here part company with Senators
with whom I proud on other matters to act
They hold that this great power may be exercised
rot merely for the projection of the Senate but al
so fo- its aid in framing q bill or in maturing any
piece of legislation. To aid committee of this
body merely in legislative purpose, a citizen,
guilty of no crime, charged with offence, pre-
sumed to be innocent, honoied and loved in his
neighborhood, may be seized, handcufed, kidnap.
ped, and dragged away from his home, hurried
across State lines, brought here a criminal, and
and then thrust into Jail. The mere statement of
the case shows the dangerous absurdty of such
claim Nephew said Algernon Sidney in pris
on the night before his execution, Il value not my
own life chip but what concerns NE is, that the
ld,os which takes away my life may hang every
one Of you, whenever i; is thought convenient
1t was dangerous laW that aroused the indigna.
ton Of the English Patriot. But in the present
CASE there is not even law-nothng but an or
der made by fractional part of Congress-
There are Senators here who pretend to fud in
the Constitution the right to carry slaves into the
national Territories. That such Senators should
also find in the same Constitution the right to
make slave of Mr.. Hyatt, or Mr.. Sanborn, or
any body else merely to aid legislation, is not
tonishing but am at loss how any Senator
who loves freedom can find any such right in the
Constitution.
l say nothing now of the precedents Of the Brit
Il ID, g., Al Ill
plicable. We live under written Constitution,
with certain specified powers, and all these are
restrained by the 10th amendment, declaring that
The powers not delegated to the United States, nor
prohibited to the States are reserved to the States
respectively or to the people, But even the Brit
ish precedents have found critic at homo in the
late Chief Justice of England, Lord Denham
prOnouncng judgment in the great case of Stock
dale " Hansard, Adolph, and Ellis l, and also
ir he words Of an elegant and authoritative his
toran, whose life has been passed in one or the
other of the two Houses of Parliament l refer
to Lord Mahon, now the Earl Stanhope, who. 10
his History of England, vol. 4, page &c. thus -,
marks:
L may observe, in passing, that throag ghout the
reign of George H., the privileges of the House
of Commons fourished in the rankest luxur:ance
So long as men in authority are enabled
to go beyond the lawon the plea of their own dig
nifty and power, the only limit to their encroach
ments will be that Of the public endurance
Nothing can be more true than this remark
But Lord Brougham has expressed himself in
words yet stronger, and, if possible, still up
plicable to the present case.
All rights says this consummate orator, ore
now entirely disregarded by the advocates Of
privileges, except that of exposing their own
shortsighted impolcy and thOughtless inconsis
tency, Nor would there be any safety for the
people under their guidance, if, unhappy, their
powers of doing mischief bore any proportion to
their disregard of what is polite and just-LOrd
Brou9hams's Speeches, Dol. 4, p. S44.
With these remarks quit this question anx
ious only that the recent usurpation of the SEN
ate may not be drawn into precedent hereafter