The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-11-02

pouring out Its scores or hundreQS oil StQtu1eS,
at every session And how and for what pur.
poses are they all framed? And by what ap-
pliances are they all procured? Local rival
ries, sectional interests, interests of different
avocations, landed interest, moneyed interest
manufacturing interest, commercial interest
political partisan interests, private speculation
private ambition, lobby influence, executive
patronage, love of power, love of Office, spoils
of Office; all these and the like of them, among
legislators, sometimes sober, sometimes drunk
en-! Is it to be believed that nothing but sa
cred, binding, valid, veritable LAW comes OF
all these? That these constitute paramount
law? That human liberty, human security,
human rights, rights of property, personal
rights, need no security but these. under the
dogma that there is to be no appeal to high,
er law?" Believe it, who can! Then think OF
the ponderous volumes and groaning shelves,
that are to garner up these ever accommodating
additions to the law Talk of three years study
of the law? AT the rate we are progressing, II
will soon need thirty, and anon three times thlr-
tv! Who then shall tell US what is law Or
which of three-and-thirt conflicting clauses,
dictated by conflicting interests. and worded
with skilful ambiguity, are to be held para
mount Or how they are to be construed
What is ever to be done with all this rubbish
have codifcation upon codifcation, and rival
codes codifed And how, by whom, and on
schdt principles, will the task have to be per.
formed? Somebody will have to understand
the nature, ave. and the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY
of natural or common lao, the higher law," the
taic Of equity, THE LAW OF Con, before the ne
cessary work can proceed
"Bm ,ce hare Constitutions" it will be said,
"to secure our -rights-Constitution by which
the validity of our statute laws are to be- tested.
Let us rely Oh these for the security OF our
rights" Yes, we have Constitutions, ana the
reason ichy ace came to have them, was because
somebody, some time or other, understood that
mere statutes have no binding authority with
out the sanction of Justice the law of Nature,
the law of God-universal, irrepealable, COM
mon lawl Constitutions Of Government were
devised by such men, for the purpose OF enun-
ciating snch truths-of getting rulers and peo-
pie to enunciate them in presence of each
other, and putting them, with promise of OBJ
serving them, in a documentary form. Constr
buttons are good and useful in proportion to the
clearness, precision, and force, with which they
enunciate and carry out the great truths of the
common law, which las our National Declare
ton atfirms) are "sef-evident and obligatory.
Constitutions with their Bills of Rights are
public recognitions of the paramount authority
of common law, with such particular specihca-
tions of restriction as the times seem to de-
mand, and such as may best illustrate the prin-
ciples of legislation and law.
Show me a people whose Constitutions do
not teach them the paramount authority of
common law, and / will show you people
whose Constitutions are very little benefit to
them-a people upon whose Representatives
in Congress or in the State Legislature, constr
tutonal restrictions exert very little IT any re-
straining force except in the direction of mere
forms of procedure of minor importance. The
life and pith of Constitution lies in its exalt-
ing first principles as the basis of all valid law.
Persons deceive themselves who rely with much
confidence on the mere forms of procedure
pointed out in a Constitution, for restrictions
upon legislation, or the security of personal
rights.
1t is as impossible for a Constitution to speci-
fy in minute detail all that the Government
may do or not do, it is for the statute book to
specify in detail all that the individual citizen
may do or not do. The most that can be done,
in either case, is to single out few leading
points which may serve to illustrate the princi-
pies Of Justice and equity by which all human
action should be guided. 1t is grave error
when it is assumed, on the one hand, that the
Legislature may enact anything that tho Con
stitution does not specifically prohibit it from
enacting; and it is also AN equally grave error
when on the other hand, it is assumed that the
Legislature, or that the Government, in either
of its departments, may do nothing that the Con-
stitution does not specifically, and in precise
terms point ont for them to do. In the one
case, a door is opened for tho Legislature to e1-
ercise despotic power in unforeseen directions
In the other case, the Legislature is restrained
from protecting individuals from the most dead
ly aggressions on their rights, coming in some
form from some quarter not anticipated or
guarded against when the Constitution was
drafted and adopted. The same may be said in
respect to the judiciary. The Constitution does
little for the security of personal rights that docs
mot, in some way, enunciate as an authoritative
principle, that Governments are bound to pro-
tect all the natural rights of all their subjects,
and take none of them from them
The Constitution that does declare this, in
connection with few corresponding and simple
rules of procedure, has fulfilled its proper mis-
sion. But, an doing this, IL has only proclaim
ed, in the name Of the people, as the basis Of
their Government, the supreme and paramount
authority. common tdtc-u,,irersdt id,c-" the
higher ia,c.' 1t has pronounced void and ille-
gal, any statute not in accordance with such law
1t has declared the Government recreant to its
high trust, by whom that paramount law is not
enforced.
So that the people who reject the paramount
authority of common law over statute law, reject
the only substantial basis of security for their
own rights. They open the doors for anarchy
on the one hand and for despotism on the 9TH
er-Grst leaving statute law without any solid
basis to stand upon, and then, as a necessary
consequence, placing the Government above all
law except that of its own arbitrary will or ca
price. Take away the higher law" the COM
mon law, the universal law, and you have no
legitimate law left, either for rulers or people.
If any one doubts this, let him imagine him
self under Government and among people,
neither of whom had any remaining veneration
OF the "higher law the law that is above all
human compacts Constitutions and enactments,
and prior to all the papers, or parchments that
! record them. What security could he then
| have against the despotism of the Government,
| or against the lawlessness of the popuacc ?
| Does it satisfy you that Government is said to
| have been founded on I" social compact ? y
| Can You tell when, where, how, and by whom
| that social. compact was entered into and who
| feels its binding force? Or how it binds those
who never had any hand in making it Or dc
you rely on your Constitution las exact and as
circumstantial as you can make or imagine i
| to be,) ,cithOut the element and the sanction OF
the common iaw-thc higher lawP
Without this paramount law, the law Of mora
right, what binding force is there in Consttu
tons or in social compacts? There is none Al
all. The idea of there being any valid law, tc
which that law is not paramount, is cheat,
delusion. an absurdity.
| Without the paramount authority of common
or natural law, there can be no authority il
statute law nor i'm constitutional law.
| There can then be no valid law for slavery
no possibility of making it legal. 1t is con
demned by common law, and there is no law o
equal or higher authority, that could remove