nature," nor "re-enact the will of God." I would. I
would re-affirm nothing else, enact nothing else. "What is justice but the "ordinance of nature?" What is right
but "the will of God?" When you make a law, "Thou
shalt not kill," what do you but "re-enact the will of
God?" When you make laws for the security of the
"unalienable rights" of man, and protect for every man
the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are you not re-affirming an ordinance of nature? Not re-
enact the will of God? Why, I would enact nothing else.
The will of God is a theological term; it means truth and justice, in common speech. What is the theological
opposite to "The will of God?" It is "The will of the
devil." One of the two you must enact—either the will
of God, or of the devil. The two are the only theological
categories for such matters. Aut Deus aut Diabolua.
There is no other alternative, "Choose you which you mil
serve."
So much for the second and third questions. Let us now come to the last thing to be considered. What laws shall be enacted relative to fugitive slaves? Let us look at Mr. Webster's opinion on this point.
The Constitution provides — you all know that too well—that every person "held to service or labour in one State,… escaping into another, shall be delivered up." By whom shall he be delivered up? There are only three parties to whom this phrase can possibly apply. They are,
1. Individual men and women : or,
2. The local authorities of the States concerned ; or,
3. The Federal Government itself.
It has sometimes been contended that the Constitution imposes an obligation on you, and me, and every other man, to deliver up fugitive slaves. But there are no laws or decisions that favour that construction. Mr. Webster takes the next scheme, and says, " I always thought that the Constitution addressed itself to the Legislatures of the States, or to the States themselves." "It seems to me that the import of the passage is, that the State itself … shall cause him [the fugitive] to be delivered up. That is my judgment." But the Supreme Court, some years ago, decided otherwise, that "The business of seeing that these
