Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1856-05-20

| lid not impule to my colleague any other want
of 1uty except that | found him destitute oil
those estimates.
Mr. Davis. Gn,elrupfing. The question was
put t. nv honorable friend from Ohio before me-
Mr. Cafnpbelll whether he knew that those it
en-. relative to the return Of the fugitive slaves
from Ohio. were included in this am endnent for
the judiciary expenses; and be was asked further
If he did know il. would be vote 10 pay th"s"
expenses Aud NV honorable friend from OH"
replied like n man, that he did not discriminate
between the various laws of this Governments but
thai he took the laws A. his ultimate guide, and
would vote TO execute them all.
Mr. Giddngs.-fhe gentleman is CORE ct
now,
Mr. Davis. Perfectly correct. And then the
discussion proceeded upon other points lie
Mr. Gidding> quoted an authority and take
Measure in citing to my strict construction
friend upon my left-he quoted the authority
Of Thomas Jefferson in reply 10 my friend, the
honorable chairman of the Committee OF Ways
and Means, and -aid II then would do rs Thorn
n Jeffors N did, refuse 10 execute an uncopstl-
tuiional INV
Mr.. Giddings --rhe gcntleman'- addition to
nv words are words which hive no recollection
of using, aud which had no intention to utter.
will explain to that gentleman what meant.
meant that, if law were unconstitutional, and !
were President, would follow the precedent OF
Thomas jeff, rson; and refuse to put forth any
effort, involving myself, in carrying it out. re
Ierred to that law 10 which much odiam has
been attached the alien aud sedtion law, which
jefferson The moment he came into power al
though the judiciary had declared it con tuition
al evaded the force of by releasing every one
who was imprisoned under it. He used his efforts
10 carry out the rights of the people against eve
ry other power; and | said to the gentleman that
| would do the same
Mr. Dayis.--I have never thought that Jetfcr-
snn was the safest guide in constituting the Con
siitution of the United States, nor in the admin
istration of laws.
Mr.. Giddings. There is where the gentleman
and differ.
Mr. Davis understand il. That is the
foundation of our difference lie was the higher
law man of his duy-a doctrine then modh ID ana
limited, and not to the extent In which II has now
gone. bpcnuse that doctrine, like other noNlonS
weeds, grows from yearto year. lie laid the
foundation for di-lrgarding law which he
thought IL br unconstitutional, though the tn
buuas Of the country had laid ;hat 1t was the
law. and ought t. be executed
Mr.. Boeoek. In what particular did Mr.. JEFF
ier,on do 50, aud what evidence did Mr.. j., fer
son give that be was II higher law man! The
case alluded to by the gentleman from Ohio was
"A simple exercise of the pardoning power.
Mr.. Dayis.-lt was AN ndrot Continuance to
reach the object through the forms of law. 1t
was "A refusal to execute a law which he was
bound Ia execute. He ought TO have exercised
lis rardonlng power, not upon the superstition
that every man who came within tho law was to
be pardoned, bat ASA prerogatiye Of mercy APP
piled TO oaeh particular case.
Mr. Bocock.-One word more. | know the
gentl,moa from Maryland i disposed to take
and cnnfltl view al the Subicet.
Mr. Davis. i trust 50. ! always am.
Mr. Bnoock. know that the rule which be
would apply 10 Mr.. jefferson, he would apply to
any political friend of his own. Now, sir, the
TIE case which has been brought up by the gen
temnn from Ohio bat the exercise OF the
pardouing power by Mr.. Jefferson; aud my friend
from Maryland comes forward aud says it was an
admit niece Of tactics TO avoid executing the law.
How will that apply 10 a friend of his own! |
think the gentleman from Maryland will bear in
niad that two men by the names of Drayton and
Sayrcs were under sentence of the law for vi"-
iation of II law of this District, in carrying off
snycs 10 the North with view to set them free.
While in prison Mr.. Fillmore pardoned them
out. Was that an ddroit device to get rid of en-
forcing TIN law!
Mr.. Davis. viii meet the case precisely as
NY honorable friend places it. The honorable
member frou Ohio aud the honorable gentleman
from Virginia now represent before the country
the two extremes meeting practically in one prin-
oiple, That is my first reply.
Mr.. Booock. Prove it.
MIR. Davis.-My second reply is. that it was
'dr Jefferson known opinion, unless am in err
ror that that whole law was hncon>titnionaa aud
i was upon that ground that he threw open the
prison door- t. everybody. 1t is well understood
TINT Mr.. Fillmore. who signed the fugitive slave
law. does not fear to execute the laws. He stands
npoU that act higher, at this moment, than any
mn stands in this country, because he oncoun-
e1ad responsibility which here was divided be-
ween individual members of Congress, and from
which men from the one section and the other
,hrank when called to vote. He has own that
IL docs not teai to execute IA law which he thinks
10 be- constitutional; and he regarded the law Of
he District against running off slaves as one of
he valid laws of the District: and therefore the
ground. that he attempted to eyade the law by
nrning parties free, does not exist in this par
ocular case. 1t WIS an ordinary case of the ex-
ercise of the pardoning power.
Let me put case to the honorable gentleman
rom Virginia Suppose, sir, that Il President of
adverse svnlpatLes to the gentleman from Nr.
IF March next, and suppose that in the meantime
The as of Kansas should be filled with persons
who have resisted the existing laws of that Terri
pry, and suppose that the President, holding that
the laws were constitutional. should cast open tho
doors of the prisons aud tell the prisoners to go
free would not the gentlemen from Nirginia,and
every gentleman upon that side of the llouse,rise
with avdity to catch the Speakers eye, and say
that it was a piece of northern higher law en-
throned in the presidency of The United States,
and mace etlectual by reason Of the abaso of the
pardonng power! The two cases are identical.
am glad, although | did not intend ct carry
the discussion TO this extent, that have had the
opportunity of showing that the higher law dog
ma which Is now SO rife in this country il one
which we meet on both sides this House
The strict construction, secession gentlemen, who
only mean to apply the dogma in extreme case. of