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


tyrannical usurpations of King Parliament, or
Judicial Power" And then you bravely ex-
claim: "Indeedl Does this Senator of the
United States thus openly maintain that there
IS 10 be no obedience to the latrs?" No such
thing and you, gentlemen, though you unfairly
manned the very sentence which you pretend TO
quote, must admit that it contains no such absur-
dity Mark my words. 1t is only the tyrdnnicdt
usuI,pations of the King, Parliament, or Judicial
Power. which must be resisted, (of course, un-
der all the personal perils and responsibilities
incident to such resistance j and proceeded to
say, in the very sentence from which you have
wrested your quotation, whether In the explo-
ded theories of Sir Robert Filmer or the ram
pant assumptions of the partisans of the Fugi-
tive Slave Bill; :" thus showing that | claimed
no such general exemption from law as you at
tribute to me.
But, with marvellous inconsistency, while
condemning my moderate doctrine, you actually
quote and adopt the following language from
Mr.. Webster: "He the President may refuse
to obey the lar, and so MAY A PRIVATE CITIZEN;
6ut both do At at their peril" Of course they
do. And again, on a late occasion, you quoted
with high commentator recent charge to the
Grand Jury by distinguished Judge OF Mas
sachusetts, Hon. +. lockwood Hoar, which
contains the following explicit passage:
that there are laws which it is the duty Of citi-
zens to diSobey or resist. / have no doubt,
gentlemen, and suppose none of you have any
doubt, that law may be enacted by Repub-
lican Government, as well Us an order passed
by despot, which may be in itself wicked; and
if statute is passed which any citizen, examin-
ing his duty by the best light God has given him.
and acting conscientiously and uprightly, be-
lieves to be wicked, and which, acting under
the law of God, he thinks he ought to disobey,
unquestionably he ought to disObey that statute,
because he ought to 'obey God rather than man.
/ suppose that any man who would seriously
deny that there is anything higher than human
law must ultimately deny even the existence OF
the Most High.
"But, gentlemen, it is not question ofprivate
conscience which determines our duties in the
premises. A man whose private conscience
leads him to disobey law recognised by the
community must take the consequences Of that
disObedience. 1t is n matter solely between
him and his Maker. He should take good care
that he is not mistaken, that his private opinion
does not result from passion or prejudice; but, if
he believes it to be his duty to dsobey, he must
be prepared to abide by the result, and the laws,
as they are enacted and settled by the consttu-
ted authorities to be constitutional and valid,
must be enforced, although it may be to his
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 so
warmly condemn achen put forth by me. The
very speech which you undertake to criticise,
and which was before you when you wrote,
contains these words:
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 unjust law. OUer all citizens,
schether in public or priratc station they fciU
naturally crert, as precedentS a commanding
influence. This | admit; but no man. who is
not lost to selfrespect, and ready to abandon
that manhood which is shown in the Heaven
directed countcnance, will voluntarily aid i'll
enforcing a Judgment which, in his conscience,
he solemnly believes to be against the funda-
mental law whether of the Constitution or of
God. Not lightly, not rGShly aoW he take the
grace responsibility Of open dissent; but, If the
occasion requires, he tCW not hesitate. Pains
and penalties may be endured, Jut lcrOng must
not be done. l cannot obey, bit can suffer
acds the exclamation of the author Of Pilgrims
Progress, trhen imprisoned for diSObedience to
an earthly statute. Better suffer injustice than
do ii. Better be even the poor slave, returned
to bondage, than the unhappy commissioner"
And in another speech, made by me in the
Senate, and reported in the Congressional Globe,
the supremacy of conscience is more fully vim
dictated and defined:
" AS the throne of God is above every earth
" throne, so are his laws and statutes above
all the laws and statutes of man. To ques-
ton these is to question God himself. But
to assume that human laws arc beyond ques-
ton, is to claim for their .fallible authors
infallibility To assume that they are always
in conformity with those of God, is presumptu-
ously and impiously to eIalt man to an equality
with God. Clearly, human laws are not always
in such conformity nor can they ever be be-
yOnd question from each individual Where
the conflict is open, as if Congress should COM
mand the preparation of murder, the Office of
conscience as final arbiter is undisputed. But
in every conflict the same queenly office is hers
BY no earthly power can she be dehroned.
Each person, after anxious examination lcih-
Oa haste, acahOat passion, SoIenaRly for himself
must decide this great controversy. Any other
rule attributes infdlIi6ilHy to human lars, places
them beyond question, and degrddes all men to
an utthiahing pdssire obedience
According to St. Augustine. an unjust law
does not appear to be a law-ler esse non ride
tr que jttstd non tue'it and the great fathers
of the church, while adopting these words, de-
clare openly that unjust laws are not binding
Sometimes they are called abuses and not
laws; sometimes 'violences,' and not laws.
And here again the conscience of each person
is the final arbiter. But this lofty principle is
not confined to the church. A master of phi
losophy in early Europe, name of intellectual
renown, the eloquent Abelard, in Latin verses
| addressed to his son, has clearly expressed the
universal injunction:
Jussa potestatis terrenn discutisnda
C9lests tibi mox perfcienda scias
Siquis divinis Jubcat contraria jussis
Te contra Dominum pacific nulla trahat'
The mandates of an earthly power are to be
discussed; those of Heaven must at once he
performed; nor can any agreement constrain
us against God. Such is the rule of morals.
| Such also, by the lips Of Judge, and Sages has
been the proud declaration Of the English lar.
jchence our O,oA IS dericed. In this conviction
patriots have fearlessly braved unjust com.
mands, and martyrs have died
"And now, sir, the rule is commended to US.
| The good citizen, as he thinks of the shivering
| fugitive, guilty of no crime, pursued, hunted
| down like beast, while praying for Christian
help and deliverance, and as he reads the re-
| quirements of this act, is filled with horror
Here is despotic mandate, to aid and assist
in the prompt and efficient execution of this
law Again let me speak frankly. Not rash
| ly would set myself against any provision of
law. This grave responsibility | would not
| lightly assume. But here the path of duty is
clear. BY the supreme law. which commands
me to do no injustice; by the comprehensive
| Christian law of brotherhood, By the Constitu
ton, tchich ] hare sIoOrR TO support, AN BOUND
TO DIsoBEY THIS ACT. Nerer, IN any capacity,
can render voluntary aid an its erecution
Pains and penalties / ,ciU endure bit this
great 1crong / 1cU not do