administered at this day. It may be enacted that one shall not hold a slave in a particular state; but the general proposition that slavery is unjust in such a sense that judicial tribunals are bound to treat it as repugnant to natural law, and to deny all rights of property growing out of it, not expressly created by the local law, finds not a living advocate entitled to respect, and not one single judicial authority — I mean one single judicial decision. Some of the ravings of certain persons may indeed be found tending in that di rection; but it has never been determined by the judicial tribunals of any country that any right, otherwise perfect, loses its claim to protection by the mere fact of its being founded on the owner ship of a negro slave. The proposition that freedom is the general rule and slavery the local exception, has no foundation in any just view of the law as a science. It is one of the fraudulent catch-words of the day, contrived for the worst of purposes and never employed by good men, except when laboring under a delusion. . . The condi tion of a stranger coming from another state, who is the owner of a slave, in respect to his property in the service of the slave, is exactly the same as his condition would be if he were the owner of a horse or the owner of a barrel of flour under like circumstances. . . I do not know that they can be said to have made any progress. If they have, certainly it has been through the beneficent oper ation of the slave-trade, and their pupilage under the system now established in the slave-holding states of this Union. There, and there alone, have negroes attained to anything like a comfort able state of existence. Through these instru mentalities alone have any of the race attained the blessings of civilization, the light of Christian ity, etc. . . I say therefore that to the black man, when held in slavery, the white man, his master, makes a due return. He treats him pre cisely as the more intelligent must and should treat his dependent inferiors. Occasional vio lations of propriety do not affect this question." Africa " seems to have been, in reference to the negro, very much what the quarry is to the architect or the sculptor — a place whence to draw a crude material, useless in its native state, but susceptible, under wise control, of being made useful to the human family. [Sensation.] . . . Negro slavery conflicts with no general law which has ever been recognized. It conflicts with no
law of nature which has any authority among men; and lastly in its own characteristics it is not in conflict with any principles of natural justice that are perceptible to a sound mind. It is a source from which might be derived the greatest blessings to millions of the negro race; and it is by no means credible, if we will be enlightened by the history of the past, that any considerable number of the race could attain an equal measure of enjoyment without it. . . Negro slavery can not be abolished. Since the foundation of this republic it has ever been a main pillar of our strength, an indispensable element of our growth and prosperity. It is now an integral part of our being as a nation. To eviscerate it by fraud, or tear it out by violence, would be a national suicide. To vindicate its essential justice and morality in all courts and places before men and nations, is the duty of every American citizen; and he who fails in this duty is false to his country, or acts as one without understanding. . . . By appealing to patriotism, I seek only to awaken attention. I would, by its aid and through its benign influences, give to every American citi zen, ere it be too late, this admonition : Do not turn aside from the truth of history, the teachings of experience, the rational deductions of common sense, and from a mere caprice, without moral necessity, inflict upon your country's material in terests and her honor a fatal blow. Do not so act in your capacity as a citizen, that if arraigned before the judgment-seat of practical wisdom, you would find no refuge from a traitor's doom except in the plea of insanity." These extracts will suffice. Ex pede Herculem, and it is indeed a Hercules of foren sic debate that we recognize in this wonder ful but wrong-headed and wrong-hearted argument. It would be cruel to the great lawyer's memory, as a lawyer, statesman and moralist, to cite these opinions if he had ever changed his mind and repented, but he went to his grave with the same sentiments. It is evident that if he ever entertained an angelic visitant he could not consistently request him, in the words of the pious Abou ben Adhem, to " write him . as one who loves his fellowmen." It is a striking commentary on Mr. O'Conor's utter
