The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1881-03-04

men, Utica, ". T., Herald.
SLAVERY AND THE COWS THU
TTON.
Mr.. EDITOR
Baw Beese's" ingenious and Uery
learned reply to the argument made by
me against his statement that slavery
was legalized, in my opinion, by com.
mon law" has more of the character
istics of pettifogging than of fair and
legitimate arg lment; for he we'll knew
that the quotation from Lord Mans
fields decision was for the purpose of
proving that slavery could have no le-
gal existence outside of poSttioe stat
| ute LGac. / now call BaW Beese's
attention to two American authorities
on the same point. The Missouri SUI
preme Court (Walker, R. 42) says that
slavery is condemned by reason and
the laws of nature. It exists, and can
exist only, through municipal regula-
tons" The Kentucky Supreme Court
q Marshall, 400 says, "view this (sla-
very as right existing by poSitire
lao of municipal character, without
| foundation in the law of nature or the
araacrittep and common laaO." And
finally, good old Blackstone says. " the
law catches at everything that favors
liberty" Now, according to the prin-
ciples enunciated by these authorities,
slavery could never have had a legal
existence--never have been legalized-
by the constitution, unless the right to
hold slaves was clearly and uneqGivo-
cally expressed in it. This right is not
so expressed, therefore slavery was
never legaliZed outside of the slave
states.
"Baw Beese" admits that the word
slave is not in the constitution, but
claims that synonymous expressions
are used. Synonymous expressions ."
mean words or phrases having, Of
themselves, the same meaning. l will
leave it for the candid reader to Judge
whether "other persons" and "such
persons" mean the same as the word
"slaves," and whether each person
and "persons held to service or labor
are of like meaning with the word
"slave."
The emancipation proclamation was
issued as measure of policy only. The
object of it was to save the nation. It
was issued by the President, it is true,
but not as civil magistrate. He issued
it as military necessity, and as mil
itary measure, therefore it has no value
as an authority in this discussion.
But Baw Beese" tells us that Lin
coin never said that slavery was ille-
gal, therefore he considered it legal.
BeZeek" tells you, dear reader, that
Lincoln never said slavery was legal,
therefore he considered it illegal. One
assertion is certainly as good as the
other. In his letter to the Republican
convention of Illinois, in 1853, Lincoln,
in that portion of his letter addressed
to the pro-slavery Democrats, SAID,
"The most that can be said, if so much,
is that slaves are property" Let the
reader consider that Lincoln, for the
sake of argument, was placing himself
on extreme pro slavery ground. and the
significance of the subjunctive phrase,
eff so much" becomes apparent Sup
pose we reverse the position and sup
pose him to be addressing body of
aboliti0nlsts, and he had said, "the
most that can be said, If so much, is
that slavery is illegal" The words +" if
so much" would then show that his
real opinion was that slavery was legal.
We have right to infer from this that
Lincoln did not believe that there
could legally be property in man.
The bred Scott decision Is the i'm
pregnable fortress into which "Baw
Beese" retreats when driven from his
other defenses. / have not copy of
that decision to refer to, but / have a
statement of what was really decided.
The fundamental proposition upon
which the decision was based was the
assertion that the right to hold slaves
was distinctly and expressly affirmed
in the constitution" If this was true,
then their decision logically followed;
if not true, then in their decision bad
law, and Of no value as an authority.
Lincoln, in his comments on the decis
ion, said, that the right to hold slaves
was not distinctly and expressly" af-
| firmed in the constitution. An examin
alton of the constitution will show
that Lincoln was right and Judge
fancy wrong for to be distinct, the
grant must not be mingled with any
thing else-to be cypress, it must be in
words meaning just that, and sIscep-
tible of no other meaning.
The decision was, lst, that negroes
imported as slaves, and their descend
ants, could not be citizens; I'd, that
neither congress nor a territorial legis-
| lature could exclude slavery from the
territories; and Sd, that the United
States courts had no jurisdiction to de-
eide cases where the master volunta-
rily carried his slaves into free state.
The 2dsclause-the exclusion of slavery
from the territories-wa was put in issue
in 1890. The issue was distinctly made
by the Republican platform, and Lin
coin approved of that platform in clear
and unequivocal language. By the cleo
ton of Abraham Lincoln the Ameri-
can people branded the bred Scott
decision as a dangerous political heresy;
declared that the normal condition of
the territories was that of freedom !;
and denied that Congress or terrific
rial legislature could give slavery
legal existence in the territories. FL
nally, before the thirteenth amendment
was adopted, the Supreme Court Of the
United States admitted a negro to
practice as an attorney of the court,
thus annulling the decision of the same
court less than ten years before, the
purpose of which was to nationalize
slavery.
My position is this That prior to
the adoption of the thirteenth amend
ment, slavery had quosi-legal exist
ence in the slave states, and was there
protected from interference from the
National Government; but that every
where else-whether in the territories,
the district of Columbia, the free states,
or on the decks of our vessels on the
high seas-it never had legal exist
ence under, and by force of, the Con-