The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-20
For the Union.
" The Higher Lsvv."
AUGUST Is.

Since my communication, published in the Union
of the 9Th inst, my attention has been directed to Mr.
Stewards speech delivered IN the Senate on the 2oh OF
July, published under his own supervision. Here u
the passage of tn. debate on that OCCASION TO which
beg leave again TO call the attention OF your numerous
readers:
here that there is law above tho constitution,
which he iaIi bound to obey Does he deny rhat
Mr.. SEWARD Yes, sir, ] deny that
IMr S. that he understands Mr. 4 TO have added
the words when conflicts with the constitutions, and
replied accordingly. - Reporter
"Reped accordingly" But how does the adding OF
these words modify question Surely no senator would
make it matter OF charge against MI. that ne fell nm
self bound TO obey any law when !, does not conflict
with the constitution; and If such charge acre made,
he might well say with Patrick Henry, that Is treason,
make the OF it, This, therefore. not what he
meant deny Neither Mr. 5. declare that ne does
feel himself bound obey law which he recog-
nzes above the constitution, when conflicts with the
constitution. To say that law is above another, and
yet ought be obeyed in preference to that other is
contradiction Faf be that from the senator's logic To
admit that higher law it ought TO be obeyed and yet
to say that he would c,htod obsdiencefa be this from
the senator's conscience 1hts therefore, not what he
meant to deny He did not and could not intend TO say
that he would feel himself bound to obey the higher
law, should conflict soah the constitution And yet
he evidently attaches importance the modification Of
Mr. P's question, by the addition OF the words when IT
conflicts. &c He understood him to have added them,
and replied accordingly" And what IS the importance
which he attaches to words This, plainly this,
and nothing but this: They give him an opportunity 10
imply denial Of having ever admitted that the higher
That is also my point. He has admitted, he has
averred he has argued that the clause in the constitution
providing for the surrender OF fugitive slaves is F." con-
ary the law OF nations, to the law OF Nature, writ
the hearts and consciences OF 'reemen and con-
trary to the law OF God" Let any man who doubts
this examine the extracts from his speech In the Senate
on the llth March gwen in my communication published
in the Union OF the 5lh inst.
Neither does the tact justly stated by Senator Bald
win, that he tMr dd. with reference to another sub
jectviz: Cafosnia-iecare that the constitution and
the "hiyher law" areGue as one, at ali relieve HIM
with regard TO having said another subject that the
two at variance In both cases the senator was
specific He did, in perfectly plain and open manner,
say that with regard 10 California the constitution die
taed certain and that the higher law dictated
in the constitution specified above, he has quite plainly
and openly declared that contrary to that law. From
this he cannot, must not, shall not escape
1.-THE passages already quoted from his speech in the
Senate left any shade OF doubt to the real import OF
his words, il would disappear before other proof now 10
be adduced That proof will still be from hisow lips
In the Albany Evening Journal OF October 81, 1sis,
ported speech delivered by MIR. 5, at Cleveland. Ohio,
the 10Th of the month. In the course OF that
speech he SAID
tits written in the constitution OF the United States
five slaves shall equal 20 three freemen basis of
and 1t is written, Also IN VIOLATION OF rHE
DIVINE Law shall surrender the fugitive slave who
takes refuge iresides from his relentless
After number OF sentences which he endeavors to
awaken and III IN the minds OF those who heard him
the conviction that much can be done by hm and ihem
for the restriction and abolition oil slavery, by dgent
and constant action IN the cause be thus proceeds:
Reform your code extend cordial welcome TO the
fugitive who lays hts wsary limb. your door, and de
fua hpi tcoaff housshoid gods.
Here it to be observed that the gst of this exbora
ton 'deend him. is entirely independent OF all ques-
the agency by which this clause in the const
tuition shall be carried ouithat Of the federal that Of
State government No Interpretation OF that clause by
the Supreme Court, OF Legislation BY Congress,
can modify by single shade the meaning OF these words
"defend him" Ii is the constitution itself that he
levels his piece, and "the clause" is the point blank
Here II is:
the laws thereof escaping into another, shall, In
law regulation therein, be discharged from
service labor but fhaH be- doctrd claim oil
the party whom u,h seryice or labor Is due
The point is that in the words above quoted, Mr.. S
advises and exctes 10 resistance 70 the supreme law OF
the land By whomsoever IL shall be decided that that
law shall be executed whether by officers oil the United
States by those of Stale, IT still remains, and m all
cases alike ha, where the constitution declares ''tbey
shall be delivered up" Mr.. s. exhorts, "Jefend them"
which necessarily means, prevent their beng 'devered
up" Mr. s. and the constitution are hopelessly rrecon
cflahle this point He counses his feliowczens 10
place themselves in attitude Of direct Open desperate
antagontsm TO the constltuton-literaly desperate
OFFEND hun you ,oold your household gods" And
all this hinges upon the fact alleged by Mr. s., that
this clause in the constitution is Utoaon of the Divine
ioD"
What food OF light does this upon what he has
since said in the Senate Who can doubt whether
be would feel himself bound to obey the higher law
" arhen Il conflicts nth the constitution r.
TRUTH