The Liberator

Refuge of Oppression.

In a vile but perfectly characteristic article upon this case, the Boston (Catholic) Pilot says:—

There is no doubt that the abolitionists were guilty of fraud in this matter. To secure the successful theft of slave property, most abolitionists will commit any crime, from lying to murder. Their reason is, that no means are unjustifiable when a slave is to be liberated. They regard slavery as the sin, some of them as the only sin of the day.

Had Lemmon intended to reside in New York, or even to hold there a quasi domicile, the decision of the Court would be universally approved, however it might be regretted by the owners, because the law is clear in such cases. But the decision is, we fear, an unfortunate one. It was founded on the opinion that slavery does not exist in the natural, or in any other than statute law. It followed, according to the ideas of Judge Paine, that wherever there is no statute law to hold the slave, the dominion of another person over him cannot be recognised for a moment, no matter upon what pretence, by what necessity, or how short a time the slave is brought or sent, or otherwise by the consent of his master finds himself in the favored spot. The following questions admit of discussion, at least: 1. Is it true that the only law that recognises slavery is statute law? 2. The primary principles of the natural law may not directly sanction it, but they do not exclude it. This premised,—do not secondary and remoter principles of the natural law directly sanction slavery? 3. Cannot the dominion of the master be so sanctioned,—that is, are there not circumstances in which, by the provisions of the natural law, the dominion of the master cannot be touched without injustice? Cannot a man, under the natural law, also forfeit his liberty by other titles? 4. Admitting, for a moment, that slavery exists wholly by statute law, it is certain that some actions are declared crimes by the same laws. Suppose a criminal, under one of these laws, should escape to a State under which no such law is known. Would Judge Paine order his delivery? If so, what becomes of his principles? If not, what becomes of the constitutional provision with reference to the extradition of criminals? 5. Under the same supposition, (the existence of slavery by mere statute,) will that principle touch slave property, which is, by physical or moral necessity, in mere transitu from a slave, through a free, and to another slave State? 6. Is there no principle of natural or of common law which protects the rights of the master?

Unusquisque, (including the State of New York and Judge Paine,) debet jure suo sic uti (admitting that it is right,) ut alterius non laedat. Judge Paine refused to retain the slaves in safe keeping until a higher court could settle the question. Counsel for the owners begged him to do so, on account of the great public interests involved in his decision. The abolitionists resisted this prayer, of course. The slaves were accordingly set free, as fanatics word it. That is, the abolitionists, after having stolen them, deprived them of a home for life, and perhaps of a kind master, have done all the work they care to do. Scarcely a dollar will they give to save these poor negroes from cold and hunger. They spend too much money for negroes at the South, at the antipodes, or in the moon, to allow them to waste a thought, much less a dollar, upon so many degraded free blacks in their midst, to whom the freedom promised by abolitionists is, alas! a mockery. No wonder—it is any thing but the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free, whether Jew or Gentile, bondsman or otherwise.

The effect upon the South cannot but be bad. Slaveholders knew before, that they could not safely carry their slaves to the North, and keep them there for a week. In most cases, the poor fellows would remain with their masters, but, as we have observed, abolitionists forget their own beams in removing their neighbors' motes. Like all hypocrites or fanatics, they strain at gnats and swallow camels. It is now decided, that a slaveholder, who wishes to remove with his people to another slave State, cannot take the route of New York—cannot be driven thither by any necessity, even if he take the nearest conveyance from one vessel to another, and do not stop an hour in any place, without having his property taken from him.

This is one of the consequences of electing Judges. Our noble Massachusetts bench would never give such a decision. May God keep it from destruction by Free Soilers and unconstitutional conventions!

LEMmon AID.

Mr. Lemmon having received the $5,000 for his late slaves, has abandoned the intention of going to Texas, and has returned to Virginia. He and his wife gave a guarantee that they will manumit the slaves, after the termination of the legal processes which have been or may be instituted with a view to test the validity of Judge Paine's decision, whenever requested so to do by three of the subscribers to the indemnity, viz.: Judge Paine, Walter R. Jones, and James Boorman.

The abolitionists, having taken the slaves from Mr. Lemmon by means of deception and fraud, and then spent some days in abusing those who were contributing to make up the heavy loss which had been inflicted upon Mr. Lemmon by the New York philanthropists, thought that a subscription on their part might serve to head off the Lemmon indemnity, and offer them fresh opportunities for reviling those whose views of benevolence differed from their own. Accordingly, a subscription was started by the N. Y. Tribune for the benefit of the liberated slaves, and at the latest advices, $750 had been drummed up in sums of from $1 to $10, with one of $20 and two of $25 each. The ostensible object of this contribution is well enough; but the contrast between its meagre donations and the liberal subscriptions of $50 and $100 apiece to the Lemmon fund, affords another illustration of the difference between the benevolence of the abolitionists and that of the larger-minded portion of the community.

The cardinal principle of the abolitionists is to exercise their benevolence at the expense of their neighbors. Their one idea of philanthropy is, to deprive the Southern people of what constitutes their property, without any compensation. Their one-sided disposition is admirably suited with this field of operations. Their propensity to do liberal things, at others' cost, is only exceeded by their holy horror at others' sins. The slaveholders are so vile, in the estimation of those self-righteous people, that to fleece them of their property gives an additional merit to the liberation of the slaves.

Such are the contracted, conceited and malignant views which are continually seen to actuate these would-be monopolists of all the rectitude and philanthropy in the community. Place the majority of these men, from birth, in the slave States, and make slaves the chief part of their property, and it requires no sagacity to foresee that they would be the last to impoverish themselves by liberating slaves. To steal them away, sneer at the liberality of those who practise the Golden Rule, and raise, in mites, one-seventh as much to support the objects of their professed sympathy, is much more in accordance with their dispositions.—Utica Gazette.