D6780_Page_1

PETERBORO, May 7, 1855.

Dear DOUGLASS:—Have you read the
Opinion of Nicholas Hill, Jr., on the con-
stitutionality of our Maine law? If you
have, then you are glad to find, that, in ef-
fect, he holds, that all American slavery is
unconstitutional.

Most of our leading abolitionists seem to
have taken slavery into their tender keeping,
and to be continually and painfully upon
their guard against conceding away some of
its rights, and weakening some of its sup-
ports. Hence, when we insist, that all Am-
erican slavery is forbidden by that Article
of the Constitution, which says: "No per-
son shall be deprived of life, liberty, or pro-
perty, without due process of law," these
abolition protectors of slavery hasten to tell
us, that the Article restricts Federal power
only, and applies but to that part of our
country, which is under the exclusive juris-
diction of Congress. Mr. Hill puts these
abolitionists to shame—for though he still
belongs to a pro-slavery party, he shows
himself to be both able and willing to teach
them the anti-slavery and true construction
of the Constitution. So plain is it to him,
that the Article in question binds all our
Legislatures, and all our people, that he does
not condescend to notice a single argument
to the contrary.

Were Mr. Hill to open a Law-School, our
excellent friends, Dr. Bailey, and Giddings,
and Chase, and Phillips, and Garrison, and
many other distinguished abolitionists, might
increase their knowledge of the Constitution,
by becoming pupils in it. I do not include
Charles Sumner—for you will never again
find him admitting, that there is, or can be,
any law for so piratical and abominable a
thing as slavery. I trust, that he is sick of
his famous "SLAVERY SECTIONAL." How
strange, that the wise and noble Chase should
continue to stand sentinel for slavery, at vi-
tal points of the Constitution!

Mr. Hill maintains, that the Article under
consideration was intended to secure
"against forfeitures of every kind, except
for guilt judicially ascertained." Clean
work, therefore, does his interpretation make
of all American slavery.

I have nothing to say of the merits of Mr.
Hill's argument on our Maine Law, further
than that I believe it to have been written in
all honesty. Mr. Hill is more than a great
lawyer. He is an upright and honorable
man. I said, that he still belongs to a pro-
slavery party. Nevertheless, I know enough
of his heart to believe, that there are the
elements of an abolitionist in it.

Mr. Hill denies, that "a statue, depriving
a man of his property, can be upheld." As
a friend of temperance, and of the policy of
prohibiting the traffic in intoxicating liquors,
I take no interest in the issue presented by
this proposition. What disposition shall be
made of that, which is no proper, is the
pertinent issue in the case. And, just here,
let me say, that I am well satisfied with the
disposition, which our Maine Law proposes
to make of the liquors, which shall cease to
be property. The best disposition of them
is to destroy them—for such disposition pro-
duces the best influence.