So I may locate property in Philadelphia, trade there, and ride on its railroads, though I know government will, without my consent, thereby enrich itself. Other things being equal, of course I shall not allow it the opportunity. But the advantages and good results of my doing so, _may be_ such as would make it my duty there to live and trade, even subject to such an evil. But on the other hand, I may not do an act wrong in itself to secure any amount of fancied good. Now, appointing a man by my vote to a pro-slavery office, (and such is every one under the United States Constitution,) is wrong in itself, and no other good deeds which such officer may do, will justify an abolitionist in so appointing him. Let it not be said, that this reasoning will apply to voting--that voting is the right of every human being, (which I grant only for the sake of argument,) and innocent in itself. Voting _under our_ Constitution is appointing a man to swear to protect, and actually to protect slavery. Now, appointing agents generally is the right of every man, and innocent in itself, but appointing an agent to commit a murder is sin. I trade, and government taxes me; do I authorize it? No. I vote, and the marshal whom my agent appoints, returns a slave to South Carolina. Do I authorize it? _Yes_. I knew it would be his _sworn duty_, when I voted; and I assented to it, by voting under the Constitution which makes it his duty. If I trade, it is said, I may foresee that government will be helped by the taxes I pay, therefore I ought not to trade. But I do not trade _for the purpose_ of paying taxes! And if I am to be charged with all the foreseen results of my actions, then Garrison is responsible for the Boston mob! The reason why I am responsible for the pro-slavery act of a United States officer, for whom I have voted, is this: I must be supposed to have _intended_ that which my agent is _bound_ by his contract with me (that is, his oath of office) to do.