7 oppressive laws, or to wrest from men their inalienable rights. First amendment.—11 Congress shall make no {law abridging the freedom of speech or of the ‘ press, or the right of the people peaceably to ‘ assemble and to petition the government for a ‘ redress of grievances.” Mr. Chairman, it is very true that this prohibition against violating the freedom of speech and the press by congress, does not affect the states as such, and consequently the freedom of speech and the press in the states, must depend on state laws; but there is not a slave state in the union, with the exception perhaps of Delaware, where this great fundamental element of civilliberty, either practically, by licensed mobbing or by state laws, is not utterly annihilated. The principle of slavery, viz : property in man, will not bear discussion; neither dare it “ come to the light, lest its deeds should be reproved.” But the discussion of the right to property in 11 the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air,” in the earth, and the products of the earth, the air and the waters, are as freely discussed in slave states as in free states. The reason for this is too obvious to require illustration. But apropos of this, we have all heard of the celebrated laws of the bogus legislature of Kansas for the protection of property in slaves. If not, the masterly speech of my friend from Indiana [Mr. Colfax] will throw abundant light on these pandects of Atchison, Stringfellow, Shannon, and company. But super-fiendish as are these infamous acts in the form of laws, against the great right of free speech and a free press, we have nevertheless, the assurance of a senator from Mississippi, [Mr. Adams,] that the Kansas laws are by no means peculiar; but are such as are usual and necessary in the slave states. In alluding to these Kansas laws, he says: “ They have passed just such laws—not per- ‘ haps exactly in the language, but substantially ‘ the same—as the states maintaining the institu- ( tion of slavery have found it necessary to pass ‘ to sustain their rights. In the state in which I ‘ have the honor to live, we prohibit the circula- ‘ tion of incendiary pamphlets, as they are called, ‘ which mean nothing more nor less than the ‘ language objected to and provided against in ‘ this act. Men are punished for it; so in nearly ‘ all the states where the institution of slavery 1 exists. The mistake which is ma.de here is in £ reference to the qnestion which I have already ‘ called to the attention of the senate. These ‘ people have acted in conformity with the pro- ‘ visions of the act of congress.” Now. sir, admitting that slave states, for the support of the barbarism of slavery, within their own limits, may enact laws thus cruel, unjust, and disgusting; still this legislative assembly of Kansas, is but the creature of which the congress of the United States is the creator—the mere instrument, made .by congress, to make and execute laws for Kansas, in the place of, and for congress. Therefore, it can pass no law which congress, by the constitution of the United States, is prohibited from passing. Hence all these beastly, disgusting, and infamous slave laws of Kansas, are a nullity and a nuisance, by the express provisions of the first article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States. But what care this slave democracy, for the constitution of the United States, where that stands in the way of the extension of human slavery ? Just nothing at all 1 And hence every nerve of this mis-begotten administration, is strained to uphold these unconstitutional and scandalous laws. The whole military force of the government, is put in requisition by the slave democracy, to dragoon the people of Kansas, into submission to these laws; and men, good, and wise, and just men are to be tried by slave democratic judges and juries, and convicted and executed as traitors, for resistance to these laws, the forcible execution of which, is treason, and ought to subject the president, his cabinet, and all advising to their execution, to the trial, and sentence, and doom of traitors. Second amendment.—“ The right of the people ‘ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In this amendment the same spirit of liberty is developed, as was so apparent in the preceding. The right to “keep and bear arms,” is thus guarantied, in order that if the liberties of the people should be assailed, the means for their defence should be in their own hands. But this right of the people of the United States, of which the free-state settlers of Kansas are a part, has been torn from them by the treasonable violence of this ill-starred administration, which is used as the mere pack-mule of the slave democracy. Fourth amendment.—“ The right of the people 4 to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, ‘ and effects, against unreasonable searches and ‘ seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants ‘ shall issue but upon probable cause, supported ‘ by oath or affirmation, and particularly de- ‘ scribing the place to be searched, and the per- ‘ sons or things to be seized.” In utter contempt of this clause of the constitution, this guilty administration, by its less guilty tools in Kansas, has been sacking cities, burning houses, and carrying desolation, murder, and rapine, over that fair territory. Fifth amendment.—“No person shall be de- ‘ prived of life, liberty, or property, without due 1 process of law.” It should be always borne in mind, that the constitution of the United States was intended, first, to confer power on the government of the United States; second, to limit the power thus conferred; and third, to withdraw certain powers from the individual states. Nowhere in the constitution of the United States is the word “ slave ” used. Wherever in the constitution slaves are alluded to, or rather, are supposed to be alluded to, they are not named as slaves, but as persons, just as all the people, individually, are included in the term “person!,” in the fifth amendment above quoted. Mr. Madison, called the father of the constitution, informs us that the banishment of the term “slave" from the text of the constitution, was not the result of accident, but was done purposely, and with the intention of excluding the idea, that man can hold his fellow-man as property, the affirmative of which, would be implied in the term “ slave.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=