OCR Text |
Show 214 DI~SI'O'l'IS\\1 negro slavery being an institution ne~th er reasonable, ju!::lt, nor tending to t he good of soc1ety, nor to ~he mntual benefit of the parties concerned, and bc111g moreover, in many of its ~o nscqL~enccs,. "ab.solutely contrary" to Engli::)h Jaw, 1t wa!:i Hnposs1bl(: lor Lord IVIaus(i.cld to hold cit.hcr that the pccunwry convenience of the London merchants, or that the two or t hree hundred years during which s_uch slavery had prevailed, could make it legal. And Jf u~gro slavery could not be lcaalized by mere usage ll1 EI1gland, neither could it be so legalized in the colonies. That which the colonial assemblies had no power to Jodirectly, could not be d~ne indirecUy by the mere act of the inhabitants. Even adm1ttmg t hat negro slavery, as Lord Stowell seems strongly dispo~ed to argue, thouah a bad and unreasonable custom Ill England, was~ crood and reasonable one in the colonies,-in fact he scc7etiy thought that slavery was a good custom every where; nor on any other assumpttot~ could 1t have been logically possible to ren~cr_the JUdgment which he did ;- yet even that admtsston could not a lter the ca•e · because whether good or bad, yet being an in::stit~tion "rc1?ugnant " to the Ia''! of England neither the leaislatwn of tbe assemblies nor the usa~e of the plant~s could give to it, in the colonies, the character of law. 'l'he dirlerence between Lord Mansfield and Lord Stowell is, it will be perceived, absolute and fundamental. According to Lord Mansfield and the common lawyers, injustice never can be clothed w1th the character of law by mere usage, bowcvcr lo_np continued, nor in any way, except by so_rne postt1ve act of the governing power. S?ll}~ lcgtslator 1~11?St _be found on w hom the respon~tbtltty of such lllJ~stlcc can be fixed. Some positive law must be pomtcd out by w hich this privileged w rong is C'xpre~sly and plainly authorized in its wh?lc extent. Ilere JS :surd~ a great check to oppressiOn, t~e g:reatest perh~J~S w hich existing circum:;;tances admtt ot-acheck wlm.:h Lord Stowell and the bwyerB of his school seek to IN AMEHJC.A. 215 br~ak down. B~sidC's fhe government openly lcgis! atmg, and thn ~ J.n. the face of public opi nion assurnmg tit~ rE'f'JJ011Stbti_Jty for whatever it enacts, the dread ~uthor~ ty of maktn~ unj~st laws is to be confcrrC'd m addttJOn u.ron prtvatc mtcrest worl.: ing secretly in the d_ark! What~ver advantages superior force anti cunnmg may, as 111 the case of negro slavery, have been able to take an~ to keep for a generation or two over weakness and 1g norancc, shall thereby become law ! Surely a most a larm inn- doctrine tcndinO' to create the mo~t te:riblc of tyrar~nics, infmitcly mo~c to be dreaded, mfimtely more fruitful in wrona than crime and violence ever could be if cornpelietl to show themselves and to act openly in the face of t he \~'orld! No other comparison will suit such legislatiOn but that of the snake swallowino- down by imperceptible degrees hi :s crushed and ~lavcred vi"ctim. 'l'_h is doctrine ~f _the power of pos:5ession a nti usage to gtvc legal vahd1ty to slavery is the natural consequence of confounding men with things. VVith rcsp~ ct to thinl;ls, that which the peace of the community chtefiy reqmrcs, that in which the interests of commerce ~rc conc~rned, is, that every tlting should have a c?rtam defimte owner; and therefore public convemen? e iml?erativeJy demands that the neglect, for a certam pe!wd, to vindicate one's claim to the pl"operty of a t~un&" should be esteemed a relinquishment of that clatm t.n favor of the per•on already in possessiOn. But t h1s doctrme can have no application whatever to the case of men, in whom t he EnO'lish law does not admit any power to convey away or0 surrender. up even their own liberty, and still Jess that of theu unborn children; and whom therefore no mere lapse of time can ever bar from claimin O' thC'ir personal freedom whenever t hey feel the imp~lsc to do so. In the particular case of the Briti•h slavc-holdin~ colonies, it may have been very true, as L ord Stowefi jug&ests, (and the same idea is dropped a lso by Chief usttce Best in the case of Forbes v. Cocllrane,) that |