The North-Carolina standard., 1848-09-20

and by the people themselves Precedents heregards
as conclusive evidence of all nghtul constructions
Of the constitution In his judgment then they are
obligatory. This holy reverence for Precedents was
introduced into English Jurisprudence when the laws
less plain and certain. But there is no obllga-
ton even to observe them in courts OF law Ihe Ple-
cedent may have been made from improper motives.
The case may have been imperfectly understood, or
the court wrong lly biased. Error, in my judgment,
ought to be corrected, regardless of the manner 1t
acquired its foothold In this country courts new
er hesitate do so; and there is moral obligation
the judiciary to depart from improper precedents
More than thousand cases which the precedents OF
ages had sanctioned, have by the lights of the pres
ent age been either overruled or limited in their aP
piication. And courts have wisely determined
that decision is not conclusive evidence OF what
is law. Is different rule to control free people
in their views of constitutional right? Would you
bind them to the car of precedents, however wrong
and ruinous they may be? Aresthe customs, man
nes, and habits of the people to make no
whatever on the fabric of jurisprudence! is tne
impress of the age not to be felt, and should our
courts be ruled to an observance of Precedents II
not why should the people be required to abide them
in their action on constitutional questions Inc con-
stitution never be settled by Precedents. Inc
alternate ascendancy of parties has already given
tnge to precedents and the hues OF To-Day give way
to those of Tomorrow conflict of precedents is the
necessary result and to which our reverence is due
involves US in doubt. No Sir, we must construe the
instrument regardless of the action of others, attach
ing only that respect to it which IS due to the force
of reason and of truth. If every construction was
prescribed by and truth-f the habits, IT the
thoughts were free from the dominion of prejudice
and passion, then indeed preeedents would De more
uniform and more right.
But such is not the case Truth is frequently veiled
by the designs of the wicked, and persisted IN
for the accomplishment of an end. blind submls-
sion to precedents would suppress the development
of truth and assist to protect error. Ihe worst pre-
cedens unfortunately but little felt in their infan-
cy and when their tendency is discovered too often
happens that the remedy cannot be applied. Obst-
in some, error IN Others and devotion TO Prece
dent in many as barriers too difficult TOR truth
or patriotism to surmount. But the progressive De-
mocracy cannot long be fettered by any such re-
sraints. Free princp pies will shake off the shackes
of error and truth will divest itself of the clothing
which wickednesS or folly has prepared. A people
who have boggled in darkness readily catch at the
first glimmering of the light, and steadily pursue it
| through the mazes of falsehood. The case am
about recite places the honorable gentleman in
amiabe attitude if his devotion to precedent and hor-
ror at the one man power are really sincere and
intense as he would fain make us believe. aliude
to the removal from Office of all public agents by the
Executive at discretion. The construction given to
the constitution while its ratification was pending,
was that the consent of the Senate requisite to
Its advocates urged its adoption on this very
ground, and The able author Of the Federalist said
the consent of the Senate would be necessary to
displace as we'll as to appoint beg you contrast
this declaration, and the subsequent action of Con-
gress with the whg creed that the power to acquire
Territory carries with it the power to govern and
history has already recorded the result.
The people adopted the Constitution with the con-
struction given by its friends. Such was the instru-
nent then according to their views. But Congress
as early 1889, gave different in act estab
fishing the Treasury Department, and has since
been acQuiesced in, and regarded constitutional. And
now, every officer of the Government whose term of
service is specifically declared, is removable at
the will of the President. However wise in Practice
and however proper such construction may be, how
dare Mr. Outlaw approve of it, if opposition to
elusive power constitute in reality part of his po-
litical creed! How he consistently oppose it,
with his proposed devotion to precedent! What
becomes of all his hatred to Executive patronage,
which stiles in his judgment the public will, and
makes Congress mere Office of record1 A differ
construction of the constitution would evidently
strip him of his most formidable influence. And
should it not be done! This question ] seriously
present to the gentleman, and expect a reply.
Having drawn out these remarks beyond the limit
prescribed mysef,-I must defer analysis of Mr..
Outlaws speech for a subsequent number:
NAGSHEAD.