The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-08-01


seat in the Senate Ifsperson presented himself
as a Senator, and refused to take an oath, he
would not be admitted TO q seat In the body The |
Senator from New York had sworn 10 support the
Constitution of the United States or else he
would not have been admitted in the Senate.
But In the second speech delivered by the Sen
ator In the Senate, be had taken the ground that
there was law higher than the Constitution, and
when they confiicted, he must obey that higher
law. That is, II this higher law required him to
do an unconstitutional act he would do 80, re-
CARELESS of the osth which he had taken. That
la II a law were introduced interfering with sla-
very within the States Of this Union, which was
an admitted unconstitutional act, the Senator
would. because of his obligation to this higher
law, vote for such an act, and that too after hsv
ing sworn to support the Constitution.
MIR Seward denied having, at any time, or in
any place, ever uttered any Of the sentiments at
tributed to him by the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. Pratt said that the Senator had expressly
asserted that there existed law higher than the
Constitution, which he was bound TO recognise
and obey, even If that law was in conflict with
the Constitution.
Mr. Seward denied having said so.
Mr. Pratt said that he had heard the Senator
say So and such was the universal understanding
Of the Senate.
Mr.. Seward said that he had nothing to do
with what was the universal understanding
ator assert as 70 the oDnga1ons OF tbs nigner
law, and maintained that his conclusions, as to
the Senator's course, drawn from the application
of that recognition of a law higher than the
Constitution, were correct.
The Senator from New York had sworn to
support that Constitution, and, when he came
here to take his seat, had it been known that he
did not regard that Constitution as the supreme
law for his government here, there is not Sena-
tor who would not object TO him as a member
After that speech in which he had asserted his
duty to obey law higher than the Constitution,
he had said to friends that the Senator had OBJ
tanned admission under conoealment of his
views, and should be turned out Of that body.
Mr.. Seward said that he had never made any
proposition, here or elsewhere, which he was not
willing to stand by and support. lie was prepar-
ed to meet the responsibility Of any act Of his
He would not engage in any personal remarks.
He did not think there was any man in the coun-
try whose personal remarks were worthy Of FIVE
minutes of the time of the Senate. He had spo-
ken of higher law, which We sre bound to obey,
higher than the Constitution, which regulates our
authority, and devotss il to the noble purposes of
Justice, and not in violation Of but IN. harmony
wres, az oOnsse.iNbh'
He examined the objections 10 the amendment.
II was said that Congress knows nothing of the
Constitution of New Mexico. Every Senator
had copy 5iiit? ffe hah one inhts bend, recesy-
ed from a delegate in the convention which
framed IT, He was as satisfied that that was the
Constitution of New Mexico, as he was that the
Senator was elected, when his credentials were
read II WAS objected that the Government of
New Mexico might be a regal one; the Constitu-
ton itself refuted that position.
In the preamble TO that Constitution, the peo-
ple of New Mexico saw:
awe, the people Of New Mexico in order to
establish justice promote the welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our pos
terity, acknowledging with grateful hearts the
goodness of the Sovereign Ruler Of the Universe, and
imploring his aid and direction ia us accomplishment,
do ordaiu and establish the jollOwng Constitution"
&c.
stitution of the United States acknowledged and
its aid implored to their direction in the accom-
Ilishment of their object, Such recognition
was considered heresy by the Senator from Ma
ryland.
Mr. Pratt asked if the Senator meant to say
that he (Mr. P.) considered that heresy2
Mr. Seward said that because he had alluded
to the same Sovereign Power he had been de-
nounced as guilty Of heresy by the Senator.
Mr. Pratt said the Senator sand that which was
untrue.
Mr. Pratt begged pardon for having said that
which be had but when Senator did not state
things correctly, he thought it perhaps the better
course to say nothing.
| Mr.. Seward said that 1t was of little conse-
quence TO him whether the Senator said any thing
| or not
He then continued his ramarks in defence Of
his amendment, and said that he had acted indie
pendently in submitting IT. and, whether he
| L. l..,I
proposition.
Mr.. Hale opposed the connection of this bill
with the admission Of New Mexico ~ q State.
He then proceeded TO comment upon the remarks
of Senator's concerning "a higher law &c.
| Mr. Pratt sad that the Senator from New
Hampshire had made one Of bis usual speeches
The same smooth phrases and words were used
to-day that he used on all occasions. The Sena-
tor had applied his remarks to q state Of facts
that did not exist, and that was the usual mode in
which the Senator met an argument The Sena-
tor had, as be always did, assumed state of facts
to suit his standing set of phrases and had not
adapted his language to the facts as they existed
The Senator knew that he had done this the |
Senator knew that the facts of the argument were
not as he had slated them. He was replying to
the position that there was law above the Con- |
stitution, and which was to be obeyed when they
came into conflict This the Senator knew was
what he had replied to. Yet the Senator had ad
dressed the Saate, assuming that he fMr p had
denied all obligation to the Sovereign Power of
the Universe.
The Senator from New Hampshire had placed
him in the position of having denied oil obligation
TO the Divine aw, or the precepts Of the Bible |
He had as mud regard for the Supreme Power
whose name is 20 frequently desecrated here, as
that Senator
Mr.. Hale called the Senator to order
Mr.. Rusk asked that the words be taken
down.
Mr.. Hale Rad the words for which he called |
the Senator TO order, Sc follows: "That Supreme
Power whose name is 30 frequently desecrated
here by that ssnstorn
After some remarks by Messrs. Chase, Butler,
Hale, and Pr,H,
The Chair s.id that he did not understand the
Senator ms ha@ng used the words written down,
OF he would hive interfered. The language now
before the Chdr was certainly out Of order.
MIR. Pratt sid that be had in the first Instance
confined himsl to commenting, not upon the ex-
istence Of a sovereign power Of the universe, but
upon that higher Law which would justify man
in swearing 10 support the Constitution, while
mentally resetvins the right TO obey another law,
even in violation 0, the Constitution
lie regarded the higher law Of which the Sena-
tor from New Hampshire spoke instead Of author
izing man TO swear to support the Constitution
with mental reservation, ~ making the obliga-
ton to support that Constitution doubly strong In
consequence Of that OATH The Senator from Con-
nectcut understood the Senstor from New York
to speak OF n law higher than the Constitution,
which was in harmony with the Constitution.
This was the law of Heaven, Which made the OBJ
legation 70 support that Constitution inviolable.
But that was not the higher Law spoken Of by the
Senator from New York; that Senator spoke Of
higher law which when IL conActed with the
Constitution, he was to obey, regardless Of the
Constitution and his oath TO support II. For the
assertion Of such law he had alluded 10 the Sen
ntor from New York and had suggeated that.