There are other things in this religious paper, which we think are calculated to do immense mischief. This editorial article "would utter its remonstrance against all violent resistance to the execution of the Law." Indeed! Very quiet and peaceful, after having talked about being "fully prepared for defense"--about death "on the wayside, at the threshold and on the gallows"--about "murder," and about "martyrdom." Away with such morality! aiming at one thing and professing another!--"If one sees a fellow man struggling with his captors,... he may lawfully interpose his own person between the parties and separate them." Away with such morality! encouraging people to "act a lie," by opposing Law while professing to obey it! And this species of morality is virtually commended to the jury-box; and its inmates are furnished in advance with a verdict here prepared for their use--"justifiable homicide in self-defense"! Away with such morality! encouraging a juror to violate his oath, by disregarding the Law, which he has just sworn to his country and to his God, shall govern his verdict! and encouraging a fugitive to expect him to do so!--We may yet see whether the jurymen of our country will regard their oath, or will follow the religious counsel of this religious paper. I am not justifying slavery. I am pleading obedience to the texts before me. Slavery may be wrong. Be it so; there is still a _righteous_ method to get rid of it. But if slavery _is_ wrong, that does not make violence and murder _right_. I am not justifying the fugitive-slave Law. It may be wrong: it may be unwise and unconstitutional. I think that any wise and modest man would hesitate much to pronounce it unconstitutional, after its enactment by a body of men who _aimed_ to abide by the constitution, and who studied the matter most intensely, with every opportunity for information and with minds trained for years in the depths of legal science. But, be it wrong--be it unwise and unconstitutional; there are civil courts to decide upon its constitutionality, and no man has _any right_ to decide for _himself_ that it is unconstitutional, and act upon that decision: if he had such a right, then every man would be his own Lawmaker, and public Constitution and Law would be nothing but a bugbear or a bubble! Be it wrong; there is a peaceful, prescribed way of amending both Law and Constitution,--and a wrong in the Law does not make false-swearing by the juryman and murder by the fugitive _right_!