OCR Text |
Show 192 DI::SPOTIS!\1 Such is the legislation, and all the legislation, by which it can be pretended that sla~ery, a:; _Jt now exists in the United States, acqmred dunng 1he colonial times the character and the dignity of a Legal Institution. Was this legislation valid ? Could it have the cflCct to ]caalize slavery in America? As our state Jegi~lat'ures arc now restricted in their powers by constitutions, state. and . feder<l:l, so tiJC colonial legislatures were restncted 111 their powers by the law of England. Contrary to the great principles of that law they couhl not make a ny ads. This limitation was expressly declared 111 the colomal charters. Thus, for instance, the charter of l\faryla~1d provided, that all laws to be enacted by the provmc1al legislature "be consonant to reason, and be not repugnant or contrary, but (so far as conveniently may be) agreeable to the laws, statutes, customs, and rights of this our kingdom of E ngland." ~il"?i!ar provisions are to be found in the charters of Vugmm, Carolina, and Georgia. It is true, that these charters, except that of Maryland, were surrendered or taken away, previous to the Revolutwn. But tins proceeding, so far from extending t he authonty of the colonial legislatures, operated the ot~er way; ~on· formity to the law of E ngland being shll more stnctly demanded in the royal t han in the chartered provmccs. The very commissions of the go~ern~rs, under ~he authority of which alone the leg1slau ve asscmbhcs of the crown (or unchartered) colonies had any existence, expressly restricted the enactments of those assemblies to such acts as" were not repugnant, but as ncar as may be agreeable, to the laws an_d statutes of the kingdom of E ngland." This doctnnc of the restricted powers of the colonial legislatures was perfectly well established, and it has been repeat~dly recognized by the Supremo Court of the Ulllted States, as well as by the state courts. No lawyer would pretend that any colonial legislature had power, for instance, to abolish trial by jury. The ltmtts of colonial legislative authority may be well excm- IN Al\IE IUC!\. 193 plifi ~d by "; tran~action in South Carolina. That proviJlce betng vwlently distracted by disputes be4 t.wecn churchmen and dissenters, in 1704 the chmchmen, happening to have a majori ty of one in the assembly, passed an act, by the help of a "Ood quantity of good liquor, that none but church~en should vote. This act was approved by the proprietaries · and as the charter of Carolina reserved no n egativ~ to the crown, it thus obtained the form of law. But the dissenters, indig nant at this outrage, sent an agent to England, on w hose petition the llouse of Lords, s~vayed ~Y. the e1oquence of Somers, pronounced this dtsfranchtslng act unreasonable and contrary to the Jaws of England, of which, since the revolution of 1789, the toleration of all regular Protestant sects had become an established principle; and Queen Anne ?Y the advice of the attorney and solicitor-general: 1ssued a proclamation declaring the obnoxious act void, because it violated that clause in the charter which required the laws of the colony not to contradict those of England. If the colonial legislatures could not abolish trial by jury; if, after the toleration of all Protestant sects had become the law of England, they had no power to enact laws disfranchising any Protestant-had they any legal power to establish slavery? Certainly not, if slavery was contrary to the law of England. And that it was contrary to the law of England we now proceed to show. . And here again, as in the whole of this discussion, It becomes nc?essary clearly to distingubsh between law ~nd -practice; between that which might legally h~ve been done, and that which act ually was done ":'1thout law, or against it. It has already been menhoned, .that while the last remna nts of the old system of vdlemage were disappcarino- the nascent maritime enterp.rise of England had lect"''to the occasional im~ vo~tat~on of . the pagan natives of other countries, o \\ ere claimed and held as slaves. On the trial of the Impeachment against the judges of the S tar 17 |