The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-10-18


We have uniformly asserted that no Compro-
mise and no pledge would bind the North, and
that there was no safety for the South but in the
power Of the South. We insisted that the late
outrage called Compromise, whilst it ought
not to be submitted to by the South, would not
be observed by the North. We did not expect
to have this opinion verified so soon and so au-
chemically as it has been. But here is the evil
dence. f@ 49,. .-... -
The Republic, the paper published here, which
by refinement of modern organism, speaks the
personal views of whoever is President, and acts
with the Iltelligencer as GEORGIAN Of the party,
is out with vindication of the President for
signing the Fugitive slave bill. Referring to the
recent large meeting at Boston, in reference to
this measure, the Republic says: .@
At this meeting resolution was adopted de-
nouncng the late law, among other reasons on
the ground that it stakes away the benefit OF the
habeas corpus" If such had been the effect of
the Law 1T would have been the duty of the Presi-
dent to veto it, on the objection OF its unconsti-
tutionality. Other objections, arising from sug-
gestions of inexpcdiency, the President could
not entertain consistently with the well-estab-
lished Wing doctrine in regard to the exercise
of the Executive veto. The American people
have adopted the Wing rule upon this subject;
and the only question left to the President under
that rule was whether or not the bill submitted
TO him was consistent with the provisions of the
Constitution. 1t had been too long pending in
Congress to permit him to raise any question
upon the idea of mani fest haste and want OF
consideration" in that body.
81 Iofo Drac liant fnr
his signature, the question arose in his mind
which is presented by the resolution OF the Bos-
ton meeting to which we have above referred
Did the bill take away the benefit of the habeas
corpus If it did, il was unconstitutional, and
the President would have been bound to return
it to Congress with his objections. The Presi-
dent consequently referred the bill to the Attor-
new General for his opinion upon this point;
and an elaborate and able opinion was given by
that officer, to the effect that there is nothing
in the bill in question which conflicts with the
Constitution, or suspends, or was intended to
suspend, the privilege Of the writ OF habeas cor
pus" This opinion we have procured tor pub
lication, and it will be found in another column
of this mornings paper.
We do not know the views Of the President
in regard to the propriety or expediency OF this
law. The political school to which he belongs
has always adhered to the doctrine that questions
of Legislative propriety and expedency belong
to the representatives of the. States, and the
representatives of the people. 1t has been for
wears the staple of Wing complaint that the Will
of the people has been too often frustrated by
the veto of the Executive and the only ques-
ton that could be entertained by the President,
in view of his well-settled and wel-known con.
victions Of Executive duty in this regard, was in
respect to the consttutionality of the provisions
of the BILL He entertained doubt upon the
point which he submitted to the Attorney Gen-
eral; and that doubt was removed by the very
conclusive opinion of Mr.. Crittenden, to which
we again refer our readers.
Thus the defence of the President is rested
on the constitutionality of the law Its expe-
diency, its justice are not asserted-and If they
are not maintained there is nothing to prevent
its repeal by Congress at the next session.
tits amusing to read the Republics disclaimer
of any knowledge of the Presidents opinion on
the merits of the measure, i'll connection with
the following paragraph:
1t is not our intention, however, even to enter
upon this discu ssion this morning, and at the
conclusion of an article. We reserve it for
more deliberate consideration. Our purpose in
writing the present paragraphs was merely to
call public attention to the opinion OF MIR. Crit
tenden, and to show our brethren OF the North
that the law under consideration is not obnoxl-
Gus to the objection of suspendng or interfering
point received the earnest consideration OF the
President before he signed the bill.
Now, here is a model organ. He finds out
very carefully that the constitutional "pont re-
ceiyed the earnest consideration of the President
before he signed the BILL" but neglected to learn
ANYTHING about the views of the President as to
it's utility.
Now, we suppose we may be told that Wing
President has nothing to do with anything but
the constitutional questions involved in acts of
Congress. He leaves their expediency to that
body, and will not exert his veto power against
the will of the peoples Representatives. Oh,
yes, but it is we'll known-we know it-that the
Executive influence was earnestly exerted to
secure the passage of PEARcEs bill, and other
measures by Congress. 1t won't quite do now
to tell us that Wing President sits apart, wrapt
in lonely meditations on constitutional abstrac-
tons. That is not the course or policy of the
present Chief Magistrate or his Cabinet No.
The time at which this Executive expose appears
is significant. An election is pending in New
York. This bill is in controversy. The Presi-
dent is assailed His party is divided. And
this article of the Republic is intended to give
his friends the benefit Of negative pregnant.
He signed the bill because it was not unconst-
tutional-and for nothing else.
In connection with all this, and illustrative of
it, we subjoin an extract from reply of WASH
lNGToN HUNT, Esq, the Wing nominee for Gov
ernor of New York. to letter of inquiry from
FRANCIS GRANGER. We find this correspondence
in the New York Commercial, which is a FILL
MORE paper, and thus endorses these doctrines
of Mr.. HUNT:
Hon WAsHINGT TON HUNT.-With sincere plea
sure we give insertion to the following cores