Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-04-30

sueing, &c, that does not shew him to be
right in voting. 1t only proves us both sin-
ners and ], for one, shall try to cease shining,
and mend my ways.
Mr.. Mann sneers at my iden, that oaths to
the Constitution nre oaths to that instrument
in the sense affixed to il by the Supreme
Court. lie used to think differently very
recently, too. Feb. %, 1851 he said in The
The House Of Representatives, speaking 10 Rep
ressniaiiues lp. 402);--
Even should the Supreme Court of the
United States declare the law to he constitu-
tional, then, though we must acknowledge
their decision, MS to the pOint decided, TO be
the law of the land, until it is set aside, yet
without any disrespect TO that tribunal, we
may still adhere to our former opinion
The same doctrine forms The basis of the
greater part of his arguments against the
Fugitive Slave Laws This was the consti-
tIioual doctrine under iDhich he took his oath
Of Office lie did not ask then, as in his Sec
Und letter to you, what he should do when
the nation was on one side and the Supreme
Court Oh the otlier'--or what he should do if
the nation changed its opnion-or hint at
any understanding with Howell Cobb as TO
how far the law should he obeyed. No.
Uhen he took The oath rhich he is notc trying 10
conSirue nicay, his doctrine was, that DEcIs-
ION or THE SUPREME CouRT IS TO DE Ac-
KNowLEDGED AS THE LAW OF THE LAND,
UNTIL 1T IS SET ASIDE. Conversions nre
suspicious when ineu change their opinions
IN order To excuse their acts.
lie quotes Gen. Andrew Jackson on this
point. have great respect for General
Jackson's opinion on n fortificn;ion of cotton
bags; but no respect at oil for his opinion on
a point of law. 1t happens, however, that,
on this occasion, | entirely agree with the
Jackson doctrine, MS quoted 10y Messrs Mann
aud Sumner. General Jackson says that the
President and Congress, in making laws,
have n right to decide for themselves, whetl-
or the proposed law is constitutional. OF
course They have.f But jackson does not
say,-Ht least, in this quotation, nor anywhere
that ] know,-that ii Congress pass a law
which they think constitutional aud the Su-
preme Court sanction il, he, on his private
understanding Of the Constitution, shall, as
President refuse TO execute the law: which
is Mr.. Mann's position. Suppose that Con-
gross has passeda law, aud that the Supreme
Court have pronounced it constitutional In
this state of things, Mr.. Mann enters Con-
Grcss. do not deny thar, ms legislator, lie
may try TO get the law repealed. ! do not
deny that, as lawyer, he may get up n case,
and try to make the Court reverse its decis.
ion. But ask whether, ichiIe IL remains on
The statute book, and piiie The Supreme Court
recognise Il as constitutional, he, as an Officer
of Government, means to aid in giving effect
10 lis provisions, by providing process aud
appointing officers, &c. After which he is
not at liberty, as nn honorable man and good
citizen, TO resist such process aud such Off
GERS; but, contrariwisr, is bound to assist the
one IN executing the other, il lawfully called
on 10 do so. From the nature of Govern
ment, and the harmonious cooperation nee
essnry to its success, no honorable man
holding office under il has right to abuse,
dlscOuniennnce and resist other officers,
when cngnged-in the discharge of their law
lul dnies. lie is bound TO give n whole
hearted support 10 laws and offices belonging
10 the same State with himself. How incon-
gruous aud absurd for n Representative to 90
about denouncing Marshals and Judges for
obey ing that Constitution which lie also
serves, aud is voting them pay for serving
u lie says Yes To my question above, then
ask, how does his relation to the catching
OF slaves, or any other subject OH which
Congress may legislate, differ from that of
slavelolding Representatives themselves p
II he snys NO. aud asserts that he has
right to interpret the Constitution for himself,
aud nnlliiy an existing law, then nsser, that
he turns The Government into an anarchy.
Every other man has the same right that lie
has. Hence, the Constitution will he one
thing in Boston, aud another thing in Phia-
delplli0; one thing one side of the street,
ard quite different Ihiug opposite. Yet
such man calls himself UuiOn man "a
supporter of the Constitution
Ia England, what Parliament DEGREES is
law, no matter how unreasonable. (See
blackstone, !, 9l) They have no written
Constitution. Here we have n written Con-
stiiulioD. Laws inconsistent with il nre void.
Such is the theory, but if the aw-making
power may nuke any law which it Processes
to think consistent with the Constitution, now
do we differ from England? Our Consti-
tuition is then sham. Mr.. Mann has clenr-
y and fully explained all this, OH the 4S9th
page of his volume, which | llave not room
10 quote.
On this point,-the authority of the SUI
preme Court,-l have with me nne-tenths OF
the legal profession, and three-lourths of the
craftsmanship of the nation, past aud present
That consideration is of weight, when no
party prejudice ningles in the question. Let
| Afi' hihhi hHo"pi SCtollAl fcUlN Ol w eD
ster TO linyne, contained in three or four page.
nm argument which Marshal pronounced
imprcgnnbe,-beiore he expects me TO spent
time in carrying conls to Newcastle.
know this magnificent conspiracy ngains
JUSTICE which Mr.. Mann calls government
| is fnst becomng one of myOriiies not o
Constitutions. We are fast verging to un
limited democracy, the rock OH which al
former Republics have foundered. Few mel
nre doug more tn bring about this resul
than those who are trying to introduce lh'
'Mr Mann speaks (p. 2s7) of Mr. Webster a
bound, in fullilment of his constitutional dun
to secure jury trial to fugitive slaves. Wha
right had Mr.. Mann to talk in this strain to MI
Webster; Had not Mr.. Webster a right, a
Mr.. Mann, to construe the Constitution for him
ss!f2 aud had he not just declared that, in hi
opinion, no such constitutional duty existed