The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-11-09
A LETTER FROM SENATOR SUMNER.

To tile Editors Of tie National LHteuigencer:
GENTLEMEN: You have done me the honor t,
make certain remarks of mine, in a recen
| speech to my constituents at Worcester, the oc
casion of two elaborate articles the first of sil
columns, and the second, coming forth after
weeks rest, of three columns more. In tn
course Of thsse articles, while quoting to exces
| from others, YOU give only detached bits, and il
one case a garbled sentence from the speed
on which You undertake to sit in judgment
though all that | said on the point in question
| is embraced in a single column. As from time
to time YOU have freely Published communica
tons from those who vindicate Slavery as a ma
fioJiat institution, l trust that one who hold.
| the opposite opinion-regarding it as in every
respect secttOltdl, and in no respect national, a;
| always and everywhere the creature and de-
pendant of the States, and never anywhere the
| creature and dependant ~ the HdtiOn-may ask
| the simple Justice at your hands of inserting III
| your paper at an early day the precise remarks
| which have been the subject of your structures.
And pardon me, gentlemen, if | add brief
| response to certain points In your extended
| lucubrationS. Of course | have no desire to
| follow YOU in stirring anew the controversy of
| the Bank: let the dead past bury its dead ;
| but / wish to say plain word in vindication of
that constitutional principle which opened the
Bank, although sanctioned by the Supreme
Court, TO the judgment of Congress and the
| President, and which. as an essential element
| of our jurisprudence. is worth more than the
Bank itself, even in the imagination of its wild
est partisans. That principle, now violently
| assailed by YOU was Enumerated by President
| Jackson, in a formal message to Congress, as
follows:
Each public officer who takes an oath to
support the Constitution swears that he will
support it he understands it, and not as it is
understood by others
In your attack on this principle, you seek,
III the first place, to deprive it of all authority
as a rule of Interpretation. And here you say
Flashing forth suddenly and unexpectedly,
it dazzled for a moment the vision of superb
ci4! observers but produced no lasting impress
sion, aHd stu less anything IKE conciction upon
Intelligent and appropriated minds. The Sena-
tor from Massachusetts, so far as our memory
serves US, is the only public man that has eUer
| relied upon this now almost forgotten dogma OF
our great Warrior President as a rule of con-
duct for himself
And you say this with the very words of John
| Quincy Adams. quoted by myself actually be-
fore you, declaring, in the last year of his life
| that " the best thing ever uttered by Andrew
Jackson. was that for which he was so much
| abused namely, that in swearing to support
|
understood it, and not as other men understood
| it."
You say this, gentlemen. in the face of ono
Of your own articles, where YOU characterize
| the message of President jackson, not as his
message, but as the message of the Presi
| dents advisers" among whom YOU will remem
| Der was that unsurpassed iurist, Edward Living
ston, then Secretary of State; that honorable
statesman. Louis McLane, then Secretary of the
| Treasury; that favorite at the time, of all par
ties. Lewis Cass, then Secretary at War; that
| laborious public servant. Levi Woodbury.. then
! Secretary Of the Navy and that still living ex
cmplar of careful learning and wisdom, Roger
! Il. fancy, then Attorney General, and now
Chief Justice of the United States Such were
the advisers" from whom. according to YOU
own allegation, President Jacksons message
| proceeded; and yet, to sustain an assault oil
me, it is convenient to forget the great author
ity Of these names, backed by John Quincy
Adams; for will not suppose that you hoped
to avoid all this authority by the equivOcal Ian
euage which you employed.
| Having satisfied yourselves by presenting tn,
rule, despoiled of all authority in its support
except that of the Warrior President you ther
proceed. with looseness of diction which har
monies with your argument, to assail it OF
grounds Of reason. And here permit me t,
say, that the prudence which has given to tn
journal over which You so hOnOrably presid
much of its character, would, if not for mo
ment suspended, make you hesitate to charg
any rule. upheld by the names | have mention
cd, with the injurious consequences which, il
your infamed vision. seem to flow from this
You represent it as opening the hood-gates G
confusion and disorder. Here is a great mis-
take. But let me not occupy 6me on this point
| will merely refer to the speech which you as
sault | do not venture to say that its argU
ment cannot be answered, though ] do no
think that it can but do say, confidently, tina
you have not answered it.
But | stop here to touch one point which i
not noticed in the speech. You quote the word
of the Constitution. that the judicial powe
shall extend to ALL CASES in law and equit
arising under the Constitution, the Laws of tn
United States, and Treaties made, and 20
then tumble at once upon the conclusion tha
the Interpretation of the Constitution which ma
be incident to the trial of these leases"
final. Of course, the Judgment in the " case
actually pending is final, the settlement of
controversy, for veal or voc, to the litgatin
parties; but, as precedent. it Is not final eve
on the Supreme Court itself. When cited after
wards it will be regarded with respect as an a.
depreciation Of the Constitution, and, if nothin
appears against it. of controlling authority; bu
at any day, in any litigation, at the trial of an
case" it will be within the unquestionabl
competency of the Court to review its own d,
cision, so far as Il establishes any interpretatio
Of the Constitution. And if this power is az
corded to the court literally, within its ow
sphere, to bind and unbind the text Of the Cor
stitution, according to its judgment, with VIVA
face can it be denied to the coordinate branche
of the Government, who are respectively unde
oath to support the Constitution and who Xix
the court itself, may be called, within their re
spective spheres, incidentally to interpret tn
Constitution? In both instances the power t
interpret the Constitution is incident TO othe
principal duties, as the trial of cases or the ms
king of laws; and it seems as plainly iRcider
to case" of legislation az to one of tn
eases" of litigation.
But | leave this topic. and also the rhetoric;
appeals which you address to the people of Ma
sachusetts in behalf of tyrannical laws, forgetfT
that among their best titles to respect is the re
sistance which they organized against the STAN
act and tea tax, though sanctioned by acts {
Parliament and by Judges, even as the Fugitiv
Slave Bill in our day.
Jumping nsxt from the rule of Presiden
Jackson, as adopted by me, which you will Sc
is applicable only to those who have taken a
official oath to support the Constitution, and nc
to private citizens you swiftly arraign me agai
because ] repudiate the doctrine of passive OBJ,
dicRce to tyrannical power, in whatever form
NAV assume, and assert for every citizen. whetl
or in public or private station, the supremacy c
conscience. as the final arbiter of all duty, to tn
extent of Drawing the penalties of an unjust Law
rather than obeying it. In conducting this al