The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-04-23

1t is now about four weeks since the demo
cracy gave birth to new idea, that Of making
the origin of an act of Congress-an origin
which claims the equiyocal paternity Of Gene
raj PIERCED test not only of orthodoxy, bu
an exclusive passport to Presidential NO
mination. The Nebraska bill-so abused ani
villiied by the niger worshippers-that lie
gialatiye NEE sure which claims its origin il
the constitution, which embodies the princi
pies of popular sovereignty and secures to tn,
people Of the Territories equality Of position
and rights with people Of the States-is now .
patent discovery, and belongs exclusively K
Mr.. Pierce. By him and by others it is claim
ed as something new, just how or why We an
at q loss to conjecture. 1t is theirs and they
alone are entitled TO the credit Of its insroduc
ton into Congress. Whether, in all past time
the democracy has acted in defiance of the
covenants of the organic law, and having now
returned TO that compact, exact peculiar re-
wards on that account, or whether the consti-
tuition has heretofore been q sealed book, and
'sjast now opened to the Sclons of the party,
doth not distinctly appear. The Nebraska bill
itself is based on the principle of popular sove-
reignty; but its originality in that re
spect is not SO obvious. If the idea
is but two years old, how can it have been
taken from the constitution, which is seventy.
five years old If the principles lay At the
foundation of the government, how can their
introduction into the act of 1854 be considered
discovery redounding to the peculiar honor
of General Pierce and emitting that fun:tion-
airy to popular rewards:
Great pains and labors were endured and
undertaken, few weeks ago, to maintain
that Mr.. Buchanan only approved the priuc;-
pies of the Nebraska bill, and particular stress
was laid on the negative weakness of that gen
tleman, that twas not known that he approved
the policy Of embodying those principles into
the territorial legislation Of 1854. He was not q
member OF the legislature then, aud we have
no means of or interest in knowing whether
he did or cid not advise General Pierce or Mr.
Douglas to repeal the Missouri compromise.
II he is to be convicted Of heresy for no. hav-
ing done soft the democratic fold is to be mar
rowed down to those who did-we have no he
station in advising the corporars guard en-
pertaining such views to put Mr.. Pierce in no.
mination at once. Such proceeding will
indeed be altogether original. It will then be
understood that sustaining a principle is proof
of heresy unless it can be distinctly shown that
he who supports it was party to its introduc-
ton into the national legislature.
The difference between building up
political hierarchy and building up political
cause may be described thus: The former con-
centrates and appropriates all the credit and
honor upon individuals. It cauonizes men
it consecrates their labors, makes saints of their
dead, and apostles and prophets of their living.
1t gives them power as payment, and sub
mission as right. The latter equalizes all
the citizens of the State, assures to each indi-
vidual rewards according to his merits, dis
motion according to his services, and public
confidence and honor according to his ability
and integrity. We leave the reader to deter
mine to which of these estates the Nebraska ex
clusives belong
In this country legislation is conducted, or
ought to be, by the chart of the constitution.
There is no arbitrary or compulsive power to
be exercised; there is, therefore, no injustice
equal to that which exacts instantaneous or
concomitant submission to an approval Of
legislative projects. 1t is enough that law
is endorsed, after its introduction and discus
sion; to exact more is only another way Of
impeaching and condemning the whole sys-
tenn Of free inquiry and Judgment. The orr
gin of State and Territorial rights is in the
constitution; and he who lays claims to their
discovery at this late hour, ia either shallow
empiric or an ignorant pretender. We care
nothing at all what may have been the opin-
ions of this or that man in January, 1854,
about the policy of introducing into Congress
what is called the Nebraska bill. If the act
wss constitutional it was not original; if i. re
oealed The Mis- Compromise, which was
ecissatioa without the warrant Of the compact
IF union, it was at best the performance of
,uty thirty-fou years delayed, during nearly
III OF wnicn time pov7is was in the hands Of
The democratic party. II il enough that tie
Territorial legislation Of 1850 and 1854, iden-
teal as they are in spirit if not in letter,
has met the approval of the country.
Time has been had tor careful inquisY investi
cation and Judgment, and that approval alone
s, therefore, a proper test of the orthodoxy
of individuals. The origin of the measure can
confer no honor upon the men Of this age, and
it is the last act of folly and weakness to set it
up as claim to individual preferment on the
the one side, or as a species Of penal statute
by which statesmen are to be convicted of nom
participation or Of uon-approval of its intro
duction into Congress. If in that act wisdom
and boldness were evinced in its subsequent
endorsement by the country, in its adoption as
q course of fundamental egislation-relating
to the rights Of portion of the people of the
United States-its orr ginators should find their
sufficient reward. 1t argues little patriotism
and less sagaeity to attempt to turn the mat
a IL nd IN a