Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1841-08-31
b miqht De th0noht bV


more respectable tne Chief Magistrate
10 take the position that they were, as
Presidents, left perfectly free to do
whateverthey shouldjudge the exigen-
cies OF the country TO require. He did
no; wish them to be held as slavesfast
boundby any previous private. and per-
sonal, opinion but as Presidents TO feel
themselves tperlectlberty to respond
as Mr.. Madison had done, to the call
of the PEOPLE, in cases where the con-
stitutonal question had been settled by
all sorts ofo6icial decision. The Ian
guage of Mr.. Madison was rernarka-
bic for nothing more Than for its accu-
racy; he was fuIl-minded man, but at
the same time a most accurate thinker
and writer. He never employed use
less or unmeaning words; nor did he
leave the sense he intended toexpress
doubtful or obscure. "Waiving the
question of constitutionaliy." 1t
might be asked, what right had a
President of the United States, to
wave the question of the constitution
ality of anything
He had none, none whatever; he
was bound by his oath to supportthe
constitution of the United States.-
What then was this meaning? He
waived the question because there was
no longer any question undecided; the
question had been settled. Although
he might privately had thought other
wise, nay, although he might still be OF
the same opinion, yet when he cast his
eyes owe" The whole land, and saw it
filled with the monuments which prov
ed the question TO have been decided
in the legislative, the judicial, and the
executive departments Of the govern
ment, and by the long acquiescence OF
the people, he came to the Just conclu-
sion that, as President Of the United
States, he had no question to settle
On this ground he waived the question.
His words were: "Waiving the ones
ton Of the constitutional authority, of
the Legislature to establish an incorro-
rated bank, as beng PEEcLUDED IN
my judgment. by repeated recogni-
tons, under varied circumstances, OF
The validity Of snch an institution, in
acts of the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches of the government,
accompanied by indications in differ
ent modes ola concurrence of the ge-
neral willof the nation" He waived
il, yes, but what did he waive? His
own private opinion, il he still held it,
or bis former opinion, as more openly
expressed. There was no longer a
question for him TO decide. He might
say to HIMSELF "No matter what !
may have thought as a man, this ques-
ION now comes up TO me as President
from land teeming with proofs that
it has been decided, and am Ito set up
my private opinion against that of rhe
whole people of the United States?-
No; as President Of the land, / ,Cai;re
H."
Mr.. s. further adverted 10 the fact
that, when Mr.. Madison used this Ian
guage, the judicial decisions by the
Supreme Court had not been given,
(or they were not made till 1917
and asked how much stronger, would
his language have been had those deci-
slons been before him. How could
that be unconstitutional which the tri-
bunal declared by the constitution il
self to be supreme over all courts, so
lar as rights were concerned, bad pro-
nounced to be constitutional?
Mr. S. would not ask whether under
these circumstances, a member Of Con
gress was at liberty to urge such an OBJ
lection against a bank bill; but wheth-
er he was bound TO do il. How coulC
he be: He might give his opinion OIL
the point as a reason for his vote, o.
nc might leave the hall, when the ques
tan came, as bad been done by dis
tinguished individual, whose conduc
had given rise to a great deal of remarl
al the time, but whom Mr.. 5. was un
derstOOd to approve, as acting on thu
principles that where a constitutional
| question had been settled, as the banl
| question, has been, no man was at ILL.
erty to make active opposition agains
it, on the ground of his own persona
opinion To try this principle, he pu
the case of a man who, from some no
| lions of his own 9s to the unconstitu
tionality Of law, shonld lorcibly re-
sist It's execution, and thereby incu
the penalties Of treason. Would it b,
a sufficient plea in this case agains
sentence OF death being pronounced
upon him to say that it was his private
opinion that the law he had resisted
was unconstitutional? Surely not
lie might enjoy his opinion, but mus
not carry il into action against the set
lied will of the nation legally express
ed. Suppose marshal of the Uni
ted States was called TO execute pro
cess issued in behalfof the bank, Nigh
he refuse on the plea that he though
the bank unconstitutional? or might ;
court refuse to give judgment for the
bank in a suit, because one of the
bench held that opinion? And why
wouldit do any better for the Presi.