Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-11-04
MONDAY, OCTOBER 80, 1854.
Mr.. SUMNER, OF MASSACHUSETTS.


MR. SUMNER, OF MASSACHUSETTS.
We publish to-day, communication from Mr.
SUMNER TO which, although received three days ago.
we have been, from TIA pre.occupation of our CO.
lumns, unable until now to s;ro the attenhon
which it solicits.
We are not at all surprised at the temper in
which it is written: for we expected no less of the
intelligence Of our readers generally than that they
would see the danger and feel the absurdty Of that
FALSE THEORY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES" which we reviewed in the ar
ticles to which Mr.. SUMNER thus replies; and it
would be requiring too much of poor human ma
ture, infamed by fanaticism, to look for any thing
in calmer spirit from him who, with the aid Of the
distinguished position which he occupies, has been
able and willing to give it something like the ap
pearance of life, after it has 50 long mouldered
among the things which had been consigned to
oblivion. If, however, we had proposed to our
selves any thing more than the titles Of those ar
ticles expressed VIZ review of false theory of
the Constitution Of the United States" we should
have been better prepared to expect such contest
as Mr.. SUMNER seems to desire, but with which we
must decline indulging him. He owes the men
tionng Of his name in these remarks simply to the
fact that it was connected, solitarily, with the
production Of that theory after, supposed, it
had been laid at rest forever; and whatever VIC
have said Of him in the connexion was inseparable
from the discussion Of the subject under such cir
oumstances. It is TIE misfortune of Mr.. SUMNER
that what he says and does in his place as SENA-
TOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS naturally finds itself
confronted by gigantic standard, the grandeur
Of whose proportions must grow with time, until,
when he (and we) may have been forgotten, it shall
rise into an august form scarcely less venerable
than the Constitution itself We are not surprised
therefore, we repeat that he SHOULD have written to
us under such irritation of mind as his ietter be-
trays, notwithstanding all his caution. We take
no exception to Es rear ks far rs they have any
relation to the subject which he attcmrts TO dis
cuss and w therefore insert them entire, with the
single exception Of the concluding sentence, IN
which under the guise of g extenuation" of the
cb.racter Of his communications and with the use of
1hat we must think insincere phrases Of compli-
ment to the editors Of this piper, he ventures to
express himself in such conten aptuous terms of the
" Review which has never theless so provoked
him. This single sentence Mr.. SUMNER may, Gas
we suppose it will crafty him, doubtless be able
to print at some other press than that which he
seeks thus covertly to ofenel. The space which
we now yield him for the reit Grafton Of mischev
GUS theory concession not, demanded of us by
any principle Of strict justice, but yielded in will
ingness to render to an adve rsary even more than
fair dealing may exact-will he sufficient indemnity
to him for the loss Of the excluded sentence.
As to what really concerns us-namely, the con-
sideration Of what is due to the theory that every
man in this country, in public station in private
life, has the right and the duty to disregard and ac
lively to oppose the laws, if in his private opinion
they are unconstitutional are quite content to
leave it to be decid ed upon what we have written
and what Mr.. SUMNER has rejoined. Indeed, we
have never thought that'more was necessary to the
just decision of this matter by any sensible person
than little sober reflection, without theaid Of
ment from nyauarter.
But Mr.. SUMNER has thought himself justified
in charging us with having published "a garbled
sentence" Of his speech. And, again, referring to
the same supposed offence, he tells we have un-
fairly manned the very sentence which we pretend
to quote" If this be SO, we are unaware of it, and
certainly nothing was further from our intention.
Even now, with the light of his present epistle to
guide us, we are unable to perceive any possible
motive for any such manning" or garbling,' =
even if we had been Gas Mr.. SUMNER ventures to
suppose) unprincipled enough to attempt it. That
which no argument ceuld prop or sustain needed no
" manning" to overturp and, as for garblng," Mr..
SUMNER might have seen that it was with the dan
gerous and disorganizing SENTIMENT Of non-obe-
d'ence 10 Constitstion Law, except as he might
Ooastrue them, that we were dealing, and not with
the rhetoric which Mr. SUMNER had employed in
its support. Hisheory we represented fairly with
his argument we did not meddlc, except incidentally
and by allueion. There is nothing whatever which
he has written or said upon the subject under re-
view so far as we are advised of his lucubratons
or speeches, which we would not have considered it
advantageous to the end we had in view to print in
srtenso, if we could have commanded the necessary
space in order to make more complete and apparent
that refutation which we felt assured could not be
escaped, upon a full examination Of the subject.
Nor do we see now what single idea tending to elu-
cidate Mr.. SUMMERS proposition isinvoved in the
omitted passage. o
We quoted as follows " The whole dogma of
passive obedience must be rejected, whatever guisc
sit may assume, and under whatever alias it may