The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-11-09

the precise passage from the speech at Worces-
ter which l desire published, it is hereto APP
pended as a postscript
EXTRACTS FROM MR.. SUMMERS SPEECH
1T is sometimes gravely urged that since
the Supreme Court Of the United States has at
firmed the constitutionality of the Fugitive Act,
there only remains to us in all places, whether
in public station or as private citizens, the duty
of absolute submission. Now, without stopping
to consider the soundness of their Judgment,
affirming the constitutonality of this act, let me
say that the Constitution of the United States,
as l understand it, eXacts no such passive ODE
dience. And, in taking the oath to support the
Constitution, have sworn to support it as |
understand it, and not as other men understand
it. Loud applause; when it had subsidized, 1t
was followed by three rousing cheers for sum
ner. In adopting this rule, which was hrSt
authoritatively enunciated by Andrew Jackson,
when, as President of the United States, in the
face of the decisions of the Supreme Court, he
asserted the unconstitutionality of the Bank, L
desire to be understood as not acting hastily.
Let me add that, if it needed other authority in
It's support, it has that also of John Quincy
Adams. Great applause.
"And here indulge me with a "reminiscences.
1t so happened that, during the last year IN the
life of this venerable statesman, while he was
i'll, it was my privilege to sit sometimes by his
bedside. On one of these occasions, put the
question to him directly, whether, in taking the
oath to support the Constitution, he assumed
any obligation to return fugitive slaveY 10
which the 'old man eloquent promptly and
earnestly replied, that according to his interpre-
tation of the Constitution, he assumed no such
obligation, Applause, and proceeded to assign
certain reasons therefor; and he then added, in
words calculated to produce profound impress
sion, that the best thing ever uttered by An
drew Jackson was that for which, at the time,
he was so much abused; namely, that IN swear
ing to support the Constitution, he swore to
support it as he understood it, and not as other
men understood it. Immense cheering and
excitement.
"Thus, if any person at this day be disposed
to deal sharply with this rule, or with myself,
on account of the support which | now most
conscientiously give to it, let him remember
that his thrusts will pierce not only myself, the
humblest of its supporters, but also the great
fame of Andrew Jackson and of John Quincy
Adams, patriots both of eminent life and au-
thority, who, though differing much on public
questions, and at times rivals and foes, yet con-
Cured in this important principle Applause.
But reason here is in harmonywith author
ity. From the necessity of the case, | must
swear to support the Constitution, either as L
do understand II, or as do NOT understand Il.
Laughter Bit the absurdity of dangling on
the latter horn of the dilemma compels me to
take the former, and there is natural end of
the argument. Great laughter and cheers. Is
there person in Congress or out Of it, in the
National Government or State Government, who,
when this inevitable alternative is presented to
him, will venture to say that he swears to sup
port the Constitution as he does not understand
it? Laughter and applause. The supposition
is preposterous But let me ask gentlemen
who arc disposed to abandon their own under
standing of the Constitution, to submit their
conscience to the standard of other men, by
whose understanding do they swear? Surely not
by that of the President This is not alleged.
But by the understanding of the Supreme Court.
In other words, 10 this Court, consisting at pres
cnt of nine persons, is committed a power OF
fastening such Interpretation they see fit
upon any part of the Notwithstanding to it
or subtracting from it, or positively varying its
actually making and unmaking
the Constitution and ali good citizens must
bow to their work as of equal authority with
the original instrument, ratified by solemn votes
Of the whole people, Great applause. If
this be so, then the oath to support the Consti
tuition of the United States is hardly less often
sive than the famous ct ceterG oath devised
by Archbishop Laud, in which the subject swore
to certain specified things, with an &c added.
Such an oath | have not taken. Good, good.
"For myself, let me say that hold Judges,
and especially the Supreme Court of the cOun-
try, in much respeet but l am too familiar
with the history Of judicial proceedings to re-
gard them with any superstitious reverence.
Sensation. Judges are but men, and In all
ages have shown q full share of human frailty.
Alas alas the worst crimes of history have
been perpetrated under their sanction. The
blood of martyrs and of patriots, crying from
the ground summons them to judgment. 1t
was judicial tribunal which condemned So
crates TO drink the fatal hemlock and which
pushed the Saviour barefoot ever the pavements
of Jerusalem, bending beneath his cross 1t
was judicial tribunal which, against the teSti-
mony and entreaties of her father, surrendered
the fair Virginia as a slave which arrested the
teachings of the great Apostle to the Gentiles,
and sent him in bonds from Judea to Rome
which, in the name of the Old Religion adj
Judged the saints and fathers of the Christian
church to DEATH in all its most dreadful forms
and which afterwards, in the name of the New Re-
ligion, enforced the tortures of the Inquisition.
amidst the shrieks and agonies of its victims
emn denial Of the great truth he had disclosed,
that the earth did not move round the SUM- 1t
was judicial tribunal which, in France, du-
ring the long reign Of her monarchs, lent itself
to be the instrument of every tyranny, as du-
ring the brief reign of terror it did not hesitate
to stand forth the implying accessory of the
Implying guillotine. Ay, sir, it was judicial
tribunal in England, surrounded by ali the
forms Of law, which sanctioned every despotic
caprice of Henry the Eighth from the unjust
divorce Of his queen to be beheadng of Sir
Thomas More which lighted the fires of per-
secution that glowed at Oxford and Smithfeld
over the cinders of Latimer, Ridley, and John
Rogers which, after elaborate argument up
held the fatal tyranny of ship money against
the patriot resistance of Hampton; which, in
defiance of justice and humanity, sent Sidney
and Russell to the block which persistently
enforced the laws Of Conformity that our Puri-
tan Fathers persistently refused to obey and
which afterwards, with Jeffries on the bench,
crimsoned the pages of English history with
massacre and murder-even with the blood of
innocent woman And it was judicial tribu-
nal in our country, surrounded by all the forms
of law. which hung witches at Salem which
affirmed the consttutionalty of the Stamp Act,
while it admonished Jurors and the people to
obey; and which now, in our day, has lent its
sanction to the unutterablc atrocity of the Flu
gitive Slave Bill. Long-continued applause,
and three cheers for Sumner.
The judgments of courts are of binding au-
thority upon inferior tribunals and executive
functionaries, whose virtue does not prompt
them to resign office rather than aid in the ex-
ecution of an uni Just law. Over all citizens,
whether in public or private station, they viii
naturally exert, as precedefts, a commanding
influence. This admit; but no man, who is
not lost to selfrespect, and ready to abandon