Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1850-10-28
We FufIllYeERill.

We this week publish; this notori-.
ous law, together with The opinion Of: the
Attorney General; J. ]. Crittenden, as 10 its
constitutionality and propriety. We deem
comment unnecessary; the reader can make
his own. One thing, however, we suppose
the Wing. who attempt to create the i'm.
preston in the public mind that this law is
exclusively Democratic measure, and one
for which the wings are not responsible,
will not pretend to deny, i. E. that this opin-
ion is decidedly in favor cf the law and
that its author is not only Wing, but an
ultra Wing. -
Some of the 'Whig papers are trying to
make use Of the fact that President Fill
more submitted this bill 10 his Attorney
General for his opinion as to its constitu-
tionality in reference to one Of its provisions,
as evidence that the President is opposed to
this law. Does it show any such thing?
1t shows only that he questioned the con-
stitutionaIity of that single provision, and
with that question settled, he had no far
ther objection to the law. 1t shows still
more, that the President had no conscien-
tious scruples against the exercise of the
veto power, that terror Of all coondom, and
that, had he been satisfied that that provis-
ion was unconstitutional, he would have ex-
ercisd that skingly ,prefogatise,": the 9one
man power" But he got an ssopinion as is
an opinion;,' a Wing opinion,just such an
one as he wanted, and he had no further
objection to the bill. He could overlook
all the other abominable features of the bill
he could not stop even to notice the fact
that it was in opposion to the public senti-
ment and wish, and that it was passed by
Congress when large number Of the peo-
ple's representatives were absent from their
seats-that its passage was brought about
by the menaces and threats Of the South to
dissolve the Union-no, notwithstanding
this, he could'give to all the other odious
provisions Of the bill his sanction and ap-
proral.
The ground VI unconstitutionality, it is
true. furnishes sufficient reason for the
exercise of the veto power, but it is by no
means the best ground for its exercise. If
a measure be Unconstitutional, there is still
tribunal that has the power to annul it,
though it shall have received the sanction
Of the Executive-the Supreme Court of
the United States. But if a bill be odious
and tyrannical in its provisions, and clear
ly in violation Of the peoples rights, and
in opposition TO the popular will and wish,
there is no tribunal to stand between the
tyrannical Legislative power and the people
save the President: and if he believes and
knows a legislative measure to be odious to
the people, and oppressive and tyrannical
in its operations, the constitution has i'm
posed upon the Executive the high duty to
veto the measure. The exercise Of this
power for the protection of the peoples
rights and for the purpose of securing the
expression of the popular will has ever met
with the approval Of the American people.
The fact that President Fillmore did not
exercise this power when it is duty which
the constitution enjoins if the measuee did
not meet his appreciation, is evidence that
the measure is in accordance with his wish
es, and the miserable pettifogging of the
Wing politicians and presses cannot blind
the people to this fact.