Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-11-04

in the last year Of his fe that the best thing ever
uttered by ANDREW JACKSON chat for which be Vos
50 much abused namely that in sweariug "a support ~
Constitution he swore to support il as he understood s.
and not as other men understo id it' ". & y
lou say this, gentlemen, the face Of one a. yoQx
own articles where you Characterize the message *
PRESIDENT JACKSON not is message but as the essa
Of " the Presidents adyis ara among whom Won win -
member was that unsur passed jurist EDwAID I1vxno
sTos then Secretary OF State; that honorable satesm
LOUIS McLAsn, then Secretary of the Treasury 1e&
iaVorise ~ lhe time Of all parties, LEWIS CAss, thon
Secretary at Wars lhat laborious public servant L1vI
WOODBURY. then 81 cretary Of the Navy; and that sn
living exemplar OF careful learning and wisdom, Roon1
IASEf, tnen ttorney General and now Chief Justice
oi he united ol Ates. Such the "advisers" nom
wnom accordn to your allegation, President JAcz
SON message proceeded; and yet sustain assault
on me IS &C nyenient to forget the great authority "a
these names, bscked by JOHN QUINCY ADAMS; for WIN
not suppose that you hoped avoid ali this authority
Inc equiyoc ~ language which YOU employed
namng satisfied yourselves by presenting the ru
aespoied Of oil authority in its support except a&
ol dic which harmonxes with your argument to assa
on rounds OF reason And here permit say that
the pi udence which has given to the Journal which
you AonoYaby preside much Of its character would If
not or suspended make you hesitate to charge
any r1le upheld by the | have mentioned, with
tn sinurous consequences which, in your infamed vision
TO flow from this You represent it as opening the
lood gates Of confusion and disorder Here is great
mistake But let not occupy time on this point;
will merely refer to the speech which you assault do
venture to that its argument cannot be answered
though do think that it can; but do say confidently
that you have not answered il.
But stop here touch point which is not noticed
in the speech. You quote the words Of the Constitution
that the judicial power shall extend to ALL CASES in
law and equity arising under the Constitution the Laws
of the United States and Treaties made and you then
tumble at upon the conclusion that the nterpreta
on Of the Constitution which may be incident to the trial
of these "cases" is final or the Judgment in the
case" actually pending is fnal as the settlement of
controversy, for veal to the tgating parties
but precedent is not final the Supreme Court
itself When cited afterwards it will be regarded with
respect as interpretation of the Constalion and, if
nothing appears against it, of controlling authory bat
at any day. in any litigation, at the trial Of any case
it will be within the unquestionabe competency of the
Court to review its decision, far establishes
any Interpretation Of the Constellation And if this power is
accorded to the court literally within it's sphere,
bind and unbnd the text of the Constitution accord
ing to its Judgment with what face it be denied to
the coordinate branches of the Government who
spectyely under oath to support the Constitution and
who, like the court itself, may be called within their
respective spheres, incidentally interpret the Constitu
ton In both instances the power interpret the Con-
stitution incident to other principal duties the trial
of the making of laws and it plainly
incident to case Of legislation as to of the cases"
Il Of litigation.
which you address the people of Massachusetts, in be-
half or tyrannca laws forgeful that among their best
titles respect is the resistance which they organized
against the stamp and tea tax though sanctioned
%
i slave bill in our day.
Jumping next from the rule Of President Jackson,
adopted by me, which you will is applicable only
TO those who have taken official oath to support the
Constitution and private citizens you swiftly
ragn again because repudiate the doctrine Of pas
obedience to yrannica power in whatever form may
assume and assert for every citizen, whether in public
private station, the supremacy Of conscience, the
Anal ariter Of a duty the Of Drawing the PEN
ates Of unjust law rather than obeyng It, In con-
duoting this srraignment you are pleased to quote
rhnf ~
whole dogma of passiUe obedience must be rejected,
whatever guse it may and under whatever alias
it may skulk, whether in the tyrannical usupaos Of
King Parliament, or Judicial Power" And then you
bravely excaim: Indeed Does this Senator of the
United States thus openly maintain that there is to be
obedience 10 the ~ No such thing and you gentle
men, though you unfairly manned the very sentence
which you pretend to quote must admit that contains
no such absurdty. Mark my words 1t is only the y-
rannica uspaons Of the King Parliament or Judicial
Power which must be resisted of course under all the
personal pers and responsibilities incident to such
sisance y and proceeded to say in the very sentence
from which you have wrested your quotation whether
in the exploded theories Of Sir Robert Flmer the
rampant assumptions Of the partisans Of the fugitive
slave bill; thus showing that claimed no such general
exemption from law as you attribute to me.
But with marvellous inconsistency, while condemning
my moderate doctrine you actually quote and adopt the
following language from Mr.. Webster: lie 1.-THE Pres
dent may refuse to obey the law and
THEN but both do 1t at their peril" OF they
do. And again, late occasion you quoted with high
commentator recent charge to the Grand Jury by
distinguished Judge Of Massachusetts, Hon. E. lockwood
Hoar which contains the following exploit passage:
been said sometimes and places that
laws which it is the duty Of citizens disobey resist
have doubt gentlemen and suppose Of you
any doubt that law may be enacted by Republican Gov
ernment, well order passed by despo which may
be in itself wicked and if statute passed which any c
GEN. examining his duty by the best light God has given him
and acting conscienousy and uprighy believes to be
wicked and which, acting under the law of God, he
thinks he ought to disobey unquesonaby he ought dis
ba rA
man.. suppose that any who would seriously deny
that there any thing higher than must ultimate
lly deny the existence of the Most High.
But gentlemen it is not question of private conscience
which determines duties in the premises whose
private conscience leads him dsobey law recognised BY
the community must take the Of that dsobs
dence 1t is matter solely between him and his Maker
Ho should take good that he is mistaken that h
private opinion does result passion prejudice but
he believes it to be his duty to dobey he be
pared TO abide by the result and the laws they
ed and settled by the constituted authorities be constu
tonal and valid be enforced although
grievous harm"
presume that you will not deliberately question the
principle which is thus enunciated by Mr. Webster and
by Judge Hoar But this principle is identical with that
which you warmly condemn phe put forth 5y me- The
very speech which you undertake cricse and which
before you when you wrote, contains these words
The judgments Of of binding authority upon
inferior tribunals and executive funconares whose virtue
not prompt them to resign Office rather than aid in the
execution of unjust law. Ocer all citsen ceher pub
kc private station they oH naturally erert prsccdens
commanding Influence This admit; but man. who is
lost serepect and ready abandon that manhood
which is shown in the will vol
UNFAIRLY aid in enforcing judgment which, 10 his conscience
ne soemny believes to be against the law who
ther of the Constitution Of God Not lightly, rash
riu nc take the responsibility Of open descent but tie
occasfon requires he U hesitate Pains and penalties
may b endured bas mnst not be done cannot obey,