The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-06-03

those feelings 10 do Change our position and what
would you do' will take an illustration AL The time
OF the formation of the constitution, the North then
now. were ayerse to the increase of slavery by the i'm
poraion OF slaves they desired the abolition OF the for
egn slave trade. portion OF the South were unwilling
that it should be abolished But il agreed that Con.
gess should have the power TO prohibit the importation
OF slaves after 1905 The constitution OF the United
States does not require that the importation OF them shall
be prohibited after that time but still free TO admit
that such was the understanding on all hands Now
suppose the South had majority in the two houses OF
Congress- and should, in despite OF this under
siandingnot as IN the case OF The ugtyesave law, in
spite OF the express provision OF the constitution but
spite Of this understanding repeal the law for
bidding the foreign slave trade The demand for slaves
exceeds the supply, and this elards the growth Of
slave States There is room in Texas alone for million
or more of them than she has. Well suppose we had a
majority in the two houses and, with the avowed oh
iect OF increasing our political preponderance in the
Union, should repeal the prohibition OF the importa
ton OF slaves and at the same time prohibit the migra
ton OF white persons what would the North say
Would they stand in No, sir; no! And if they would
they ought not Do they suppose that we would be sub
missive in fragrant case' Gentlemen think of it,
DO not to us you have not the votes TO do this So
we have not. But in case where the constitution is
concerned majority does not give right The very OBJ
jec OF written constitutions is to protect minorties
Sir there have been several vital conflicts between the
North and the South. On each recurrence Of them there
has been increased reslduum Of discomfort left both al
the North and the South There was much discomfort
with the Missouri compromise more with the tariff COM
promise, and The sting which is still felt, notwiihstand
occasions We all know this In consequence of men
esanged who ought to feel in common, and, what is
more. do TO large extent, feel in common. Let the
country beware OF those who tell them there danger
of dissolution of the Union and OF all the dire caam
ties which will follow in its train
The gentleman from New York. [Mr. FLoYD.] and
others, tells that this law is odous Disagree
able to be executed There few laws that not
The very necessity for laws, 10 great extent, grows out
Of the fact that il is disageeabe to good men to force
bad do their duty. You want laws to compel
man TO do what is agreeable; but laws necessary to
compel men 10 do what is right although disagreeable
The necessity for laws grows out OF the dsagreeabeness
of the performance Of the duties enjoned Does any Judge
pronounce the sentence OF DEATH any jury find ver
dict of condemnation, from pleasure II is painful to do
it. and hence the law makes It the duty Of some one TO
do it, so that the rights OF society shall be respected
And indeed. in civil suits there are few judgments which
are pronounced that are not to force men 10 DO what
disageeabe to them, and the execution of which indg
ments therefore, by those 10 whom their execution is in
trusted, cannot be very agreeable.
Sir gentlemen talk about the law being disagreeable,
and that they will execute because they do like
this that provision or other provision in the
law. What law is il that s acceptable TO everybody
Take that masterwork of craftsmanship, the constitution
of the United States. How many men, If they had TO
frame il according to their notions, would have
agreed TO all OF ii precisely il isl Sir, it is not of
those negative pictures which, when viewed by artists
much 10 admire, yet which would propose
to alter, but is OF those magnificent works OF
which, when clscsed by the precise persons, each
would suggest alteration, and yet all the others
would demur 10 the precise one he would suggest.
come now, sir, to the second proposition laid down
They tell that the compromise measures the law of
the land and until there proposition TO repeal them that
ii idle mischevous 10 talk about reatming them
SO did think English American ancestors and
have not thought any people What was Magma
Chatal Coke tells that il is declaatory of ancient
nor taking aooy any aM dulles. bnt only repsttion
OF former privileges which time or oppression had
had they lived then, would have sad Why these things
the laws OF England already; IS true, dsirust
that the authorities of the country will observe them but
they are the laws OF The land and why require that their
authority shall be reaihrmedr' p
So did not think the sturdy barons OF Engand-several
successive kings were made 10 rearm It, and Lord Coke
tells that up his time tina, Magma Char,a and the
Chara Foresta " have been confirmed, established, and
commanded 10 be put IN execution by thry-wo acts OF
Parliament in all" Why this done In the fret
instance il only declaaiory OF existing rights and
The last occasion upon which they were commanded
TO be put in execution" they had already been reamed
thuy-one times before
What was il that has brought down 10 us, through
period OF centuries the memorable response OF
the British lords and commons TO the preates in The time
OF Henry the Third I" Njiumus kges 1agiG mut1re p
The occasion upon which that famous response was
made only important so lar as the fixed wall OF the
Parliament, principle, was concerned The precise
bill before them was not very important
Hume thus describes IL:
There had been great dispue, between the civil and
the ecclesiastical courts concerning basardy The com
mon law had deemed all those TO be basards who
mate and when any dispute Of inheritance arose. had
formerly been usual tor the civil courts TO issue wTi the
the person Tho bishop always returned agree
able the law, though contrary the municipal
law Of the kingdom. For this the ctcu courts had
changed The terms Of their prif and, instead Of requiring
the spiritual courts 10 make inquison concerning the To-
gmacy Of they only proposed The simple ques
Of fact piher hs born before sffer csdlock
The preaes planned Of this practice TO the Parliament
assembled at Meston, In the twentieth OF this King aud
desired that the municipal law might be rendered conform
able the canon, bo received from all The nobility the
memorable reply, Nols1ias ftgss Aagtfo mmiare.' Wa
WILL CHANGE ENGLAND"
Now sir, what has made this famous response memo
rabe and brought II down TO through track Of six
hundred years. II has the eminent loyalty 10 British
law, and the hrmness exhibited in Il that has embamed
IL forever
Daring the time OF Henry the HI under his encour-
agemen England was infested with foreigners. They
wished 10 substitute the canon law for the common law
They hesiaed express their adherence of the
laws OF England When these laws at any time
appealed In opposition TO their wrongs, they scrupled
moi TO reply "Hhof did he English iop signify 10 them
They minded them not" And at that time TOO, now.
the higher-law doctrine with countenanee no, only
with the preales, but with others in authority Under
these circumstances the British Parliament felt it due 10
as unmportant undoubtedly II In every other
respect not 10 content themselves with merely neglect
ing declining 10 act upon the proposition TO disturb
the British law but 10 rebuke that attempt with stern.
Ii they had reasoned do now, they would
have said Suppose these preaes have petIoned us 10
change laws what we they are the laws,
and that is enough. But so did not those men,
the response OF whom has lived for six hundred years,
and will live forever They put down disloyalty TO
British law, by saying stenly, we nil mol change u,
iaws Of Engfandr' That was resolution Of hnay IN
respect the attempt TO substitute the law for the
common law Ali | have ever wanted similar
resolution against the attempts to substitute "the higher