29 in the Convention ; nor is it too much to say that the Constitution was framed with this rule on Slavery as a guide. And the Supreme Court of the United States at a later day, in the case of United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 390, by the voice of Chief Justice Marshall, promulgated this same rule, in words stronger even than those of Lord Mansfield, saying: “ Where rights are infringed, where fundamental principles are overthrown, where the general system of the laws is departed from, the legislative intention must be expressed with irresistible clearness, to induce a court of justice to suppose a design to effect such object.” It is well known, however, that these two declarations are little-more than new forms for the ancient rule of the common law, as expressed by Fortescue: Impius et cnidelis judicandus est qui Libertati non favet; He is to be adjudged impious and cruel who does not favor Liberty; and, as expressed by Blackstone, “The law is always ready to catch at anything in favor of Liberty.” But, as no prescription runs against the King, so no prescription is allowed to run against Slavery, while all the early victories of Freedom are set'aside by the Slave-masters of to-day. The prohibition of Slavery in the Missouri Territory, and all the precedents, legislative and judicial, for the exercise of this power, admitted from the beginning until now, have been overturned; but at last, bolder grown Slave-masters do not hesitate to assail that principle of jurisprudence which makes Slavery the creature of “ positive law ” alone, to be upheld only by words of “irresistible clearness.” The case of Somersett, in which this great rule was declared, has been impeached on this floor, as the Declaration of Independence has been impeached also. And here the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Benjamin] has taken the lead. He has dwelt on the assertion that, in the history of English law, there were earlier cases, where a contrary principle was declared. But permit me to say that no such cases, even if they exist in authentic reports, can impair the influence of this well- considered authority. The Senator knows well that an old and barbarous case is a poor answer to a principle, which is brought into activity by the demands of an advancing Civilization, and which once recognised can never be denied; that jurisprudence is not a dark lantern, shining in a narrow circle, and never changing, but a gladsome light, which, slowly emerging from original darkness, grows and spreads with human improvement, until at last it becomes as broad and general as the Light of Day. When the Senator, in this ageleaguing all his forces — undertakes to drag down that immortal principle, which made Slavery impossible in England, as, thank God! it makes Slavery impossible under the Constitution, he vainly tugs to drag down a luminary from the sky. The enormity of the pretension that Slavery ' is sanctioned by the Constitution becomes still more apparent, when we read the Constitution in the light of great national acts and of con- temporanous declarations. First comes the Declaration of Independence, the illuminated initial letter of our history, which in familiar words announces that “ all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Nor does this Declaration, binding the consciences of all who enjoy the privileges it secured, stand alone. There is another national act, less known, but in itself a key to the first, when, at the successful close of the Revolution, the Continental Congress, in a solemn address to the people, loftily announced: “ Let it be remembered, that it has ever been the pride and the boast of America, that the rights for which she has contended were the rights of human nature. By the blessing of the A uthor of these rights, they have prevailed over all opposition, and form the Basis of thirteen independent States.” Now, whatever may be the privileges of States in their individual capacities, within their several local jurisdictions, no power can be attributed to the nation, in the absence of positive unequivocal grant, inconsistent with these two national declarations. Here is the national heart, the national soul, the national will, the national voice, which must inspire our interpretation of the Constitution, and enter into and diffuse itself through all the national legislation. Such are the commanding authorities which constitute “ Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” and in more general words, “ the Rights of Human Nature,” without distinction of race, or recognition of the curse of Ham, as the basis of our national institutions. They need no additional support. But, in strict harmony with these are the many utterances in the Convention which framed the Constitution: of Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, who announced that uhe would never concur in upholding domestic Slavery; it was a nefarious institution; ” of Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who said “ that we had nothing to do with the. conduct of the States as to Slavery, but we ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it; ” of Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, and Mr. Gorham, of Massachusetts, who all concurred with Mr. Gerry; and especially of Mr. Madison, of Virginia, who, in mild juridical phrase, “ thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there oould be property in man.” And lastly, as if to complete the elaborate work of Freedom, and to give * expression to all these utterances, the word “ servitude,” which had been allowed in
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=