New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-04-19
NETWORK TRIBUNE.
NEW-YORK. SATURDAY, APRIL -.
The CannI Qnestion.

nority of the Senate. the Legislature Of this
State has been forced to dissolve, leaving
the most important and pressing business
unsccomplisbed. Among this unfinished
business, beside the Canal bill, there is the
Appropriation bill, the Supply BILL College
and School bills, all the Donation bills,
Rouse's Point Bridge BILL City LON BILL
the bill for the Supp sson of Gambling,
ard between two and three hundred pri-
vate bills. An extra session is thus
made indispensable. at q great expense to
the treasury and with serious inconvenience
to the people.
The Extra Session will open at the ear
lest possible moment; as we learn by
dispatch from Albany, it will be in June.
Previous TO that time special elections
must be held to fill the places Of the re-
signed Senators and pronounce upon their
procedure. We could wish that the peO-
pie Of the whole State were called upon to
vote on the questions involved, instead OF
the citizens Of twelve Senatorial Districts.
We should gladly hear the voice of entire
New. York in such a crisis. And we shall
hear it. From the pre's, from public as
semblsges it will be uttered. And when
the election comes, the votes of those Dis
tricts will pronounce, not their own judg-
ment merely, but that Of all the other Dis
tIicts. They will pronounce a final and
sweeping condemnation on the revolution
ISIS, on the fatel policy which, now as ever
aims to strsngle and stagnate the exulting
prosperity of this great State, on the out
)ageous conduct Of a faction ready by all
and any means to defeat the will of the
people lega ly expressed through their rep
resentatives.
What is it that the recusant Senators
have done! The plain English oft is that,
finding themselves in the minority they
have offered to the majority the alternative
of submitting TO their dictation or of stop
ping the business of the government. They
say that the majority ought to have sub
mitted to them, ought to have gone no far
ther and done no more than might consist
with their gracious pleasure. This it seems
is the democratic " theory and "demo-
cratic " legislators enforce it.
Butthe Constitution was in danger Sup
pose it was, was this tho remedy 1t is
proper argument against bill that it IS un
constitutional. That argument may and
on occasion, rigbtfully should be urged on
the legislative floor. The party presenting
it may convince his colleagues or he may
not. If he does, they will reject the bill
if not. they may pass IT, But his failure
10 convince them does not authorize him 10
stop their proceedings altogether. 1t does
not authorize him to set up his Judgment as
so much superior to that of the majority,
that he may prevent them from acting at
all. 1t is bis right and duty to vote as his
Judgment dictates, but not by stratagem or
force, to nullify the judgment of all the rest.
That is a right which exists under de-
spotic governments, and where there is no
other remedy. In New York it does not
exist.
Any legislature may pass an uncOnstitu-
tional law. 1t has happened already and
will very likely happen again. The Con-
stitution itself foresees such cases and pro-
vides for them. 1t establishes proper tri-
bunals with regular modes of proceeding
so that questions of this nature may re-
ceive deliberate and impartial judicial set
Element. But such an act as that of these
Senators it does not contemplate and will
not justify. Had they staid in their posts
protesting against, but not impeding tho
regular contamination of the Canal Bill by
the majority, they would have done no
more than their duty. Had they taken
steps to test judicially the constitutionality
of the law they would simply have made
use of their right. But when with the le-
gal, constitutional means of redress open to
them, they choose to conuavene all the
usages of our legislation, set at nought the
spirit and letter of the Constitution, and
throw the affairs of the State into confu-
sion and embarrassment, they can have no
sufficient justification, and such will be the
verdict of the people.
Their act is unjusti6able even admitting
their grounds to be valid. But if they are
not valid, what thenl Let Us look for a
moment at the nature of the bill.
The Constitution provides that the State