Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1848-11-30


that instrument Is lhe,e any skukng or dodg-
ing here2 II | were at liberty to detail what
took place in committee, | believe, that for one
should be exonerated from the charge oil dodg-
ing In reference to this matter. But say here,
as | said there, if there be constitutional ques
ton in the case, am willing TO leave its decis-
ion to the constitutional authorities. l cannot
repudiatc them. Shall we dstrust the co.ordi-
mite department of the Government ! may
distrust the President. He was not elected by
my vote but while he is in office as a co-ordin.
ute department of the Government, he is entitled
to my confidence us legislator, so far as inc
Constitution submits any matter to his consti'u-
tional control. How is it with the Supreme
Court? Shall dis,rus them? Shall refuse
to submit the matter to their decision! Delong
TO class Of politicians who have uniformly as.
serted the supremacy of iha' court, and j nus,
confess tina, have been greatly surprised to find
Wings of the North dsowning or distressing
It's constitutional authority. have yet to learn.
either from political friends or political opponents,
thai that court has in any degree forfeited the
confidence Of the country In the integrity and
capacity of that court, ] have equal confidence.
WIN doubts the integrity or the learning Of the
distinguished Chief Justice? And who is pre-
pared to say that that court has become dc
generate, and is .illed with such UNIV orihy men,
that it is not to he trusted with the power con
icrred upon it by the Constitution? can preach
no such heresy, aud am perfectly willing TO
leave this us n constitutional question to that
court. If the court decide against me, will
submit. II we Cunrot trust the power there,
where, in heavens name, shall VIC repose ftp
To what earthly tribunal will gentlemen refer
the question? might take ii home to Wing
caucus in the State of Vermont, but their tecs
ion would hardly bind the people of the South.
We may decide II here, but to what would our
decision amount? My friend from New Jersey
seems 10 think that the country would acQuesce
in the decision of Congress, though not in the
decision of the Supreme Court. Does eXperi
ence sustain The Senator IN that view Did the
people acquiesce in The decision of the tariff of
J2? Did not the people, irstead Of acquies
cIng, take the liberty of changing their essla
tors, and abolish that tariff? hope my friend
from New Jersey ducs not consider us estopped
from finding fault with that last Legislation.
There is Ole point upon which forbear any
remark, except 10 say, that if there be any ques-
ton TO the practicubihly under this bill OF
rylng the subject to the Supreme Court, let the
bill be uended. ] have been informed that
some gentlemen, with the view of closing This
Whole controversy TN this point, will prepare an
amendment removing this objection. 1t is not
ncf esSary, then, to argue that point. But the
bill has been most grossly misrcpresen'cd. We
are told that we propose to abandon our legisa-
TIVE control over the subject 10 call on some
other dcpattn ent of the Government 10 act for
us and take the responsibility from our should.
ers. What portion of the bill u.ties that
charge? Where will gentlemen find the propo
sltIon to commit this subject, as a Legislative
question, To the judges Of the Supreme Court !:
should be loalh TO believe that any Senator
upon this flor could Imagine that such would be
the effect Of this bill. What do you propose 10
refer 10 the Supreme Court Nothing as mat
ter of reference. We simply leave that court Ia
exercise its constitutional functions of determin-
ing tins constitutional question. We leave the
power in their hands just where the Cons,itn-
ton placed it, and we do so because We are no
competent to withdraw it. Docs not the bill
place the subject where no legislation but that o
Congress eau bear on it, and provide for the de-
clson OF any constitutional question which may
lie beyond Legislation, by the very authority ap
pointed by The Constitution itself for that pur
pose?
Sir, what wolld gentlemen have? will they
60 Tor the Wilmot proviso? VIII they 60 70
the ordinance Of 81? Suppose we enact then
in this bill And suppose the court should de
eide, after all, that there was a constitutional
guarantee As insisted on by my friends from thu
South in relation to this species of properly, ant
that our provision is unconstitutional. Suppos
further, that we extend the ordinance of ~ owe
these Territories, and that the moment they be
come States they repeal it, and the question goe
TO the Supreme Court, Whether our ordinhnc
was binding upon that ipeople: How is NJ
friend from New Jersey in that case, TO with
draw the subject from The Supreme Court P
Will he call upon them to rehnqulsh tina, power
Does not every gentlemen see that we have lei
the sui iect where we mist leave il, and tina
there is no 'evasion" here?
Mr.. MiLLER.-1'he Senator has misunderstood
any argument. This bill will present the cast
to The Supreme Court without being acconpan
led by an act of Congress. ! do not deny tn
RICH, Of the Supreme Court To decide upon TIN
legislation of Congress, but if The DILL be &C
companied by an act OF Congress, the Suprem
Court may, in It's decision, say, that according t.
the Constitution. there being no act of Congress
jnhlblIlng slavery, slavery may oe established il
the Territories, but if Congress acted on Tin
subject, having power 10 do so, slavery must b.
prohibited.
Mr. PHELps.-I was aware that the Senate
made that distinction. But suppose both he an
are nghl, that this act of Congress virtuall
leaves IN force the law of Mexico, is not that
Legislative act on the rar; of Congress on tn
subject? II the question comes before the SI
preme Court, they are inform ed that, when hes
Territories came into the Union, they came il
with such laws, anu TINT Congress lett them i
force. VIII not the court regard the act q
Congress as a Legislative determination on til
matter; aud how can the gentleman dlsiinguls
between our action negatively and our acto
positively? Suppose a bill introduced here I
prohibit slavery IN these Territories, would III
action OF Congress add any diiIeren, consttt
tional phase to the question:? The Senate
from Maine told us that every school-boy in III
country knows that the Supreme Court cHnnt
settle political question. Sir, call it poliilcl
question, or what you please, have | not show
JhH the legislative power is exhausted, IN prov
dug that the local law shall not be repealed
aud If the constitution oyerrides that leglsaio
and abrogates that law, how can we remedy tn
mischief? Whit power is there in this counlr
that can decide the question Of the constitution
atty OF an act Of Congress, unless il be the s,
preme Court? No other The only aftermath,
is 10 repuda:e the authority Of that tribunal.
But in that case we musl deny the authority
The instrument ITSELF if we deny The power del
gated by it.
But II is asked by other Senators why IRE d
not settle this question. My friend from Ne
Jersey, hos told us this morning, that the cor
mittee VAS raseu 10 settle this difficult conslit
tional question. beg leave to say, that il | It
supposed that | was placed on that commit,
with that view, would never have troubled Il
committee with my presence. What, sir, "a cor
mitlee Of the Senate raised 10 decide { mere j
dlcial question, and one upon which the opini,
Of every member was doubtless deliberately io
med The committee was raised for the pu