New-York daily tribune., 1858-02-18


| Supreme Court fron the Free States. For our
part, We are Indifferent to the change. The Pro
Slavery character Of the present Court does not by
any iLesns arse entirely fon the fact that ma
o,ity Of its members are from the Slave Nstes.
Neither would that character be changed simply by
taking majority Of them from the Free States.
1t is the appointing power that gives the Court its
Pro-SIayery character; and this character can be
given as completely b5 the appointment Of Sortt-
ern dOughfsces ss Southern sayeholders. What
adysntage did il give the Free States to have the
lat appointment to that Court made rom the
thoroughly Republican State Of Maine ? Are the
political rights AID interests Of the Free States up
he'd on the beech BY Nathan Clifford Did 0rier
and Nc!sOn 20 anything 10 sage the Court from ita
receat contamination b. the dirty swssh Of slave
holding dictat:cn' No, gentlemen you do not
touch The root Of the Ell By simply providing that
dougbfaces instead OF slsvtholders shall be sp-
pointed 10 The bench. You cannot reform the
Court without first refo ming your Federal EKecu-
tive which nakes the Court. If it were within
the bounds Of possibility to shorten the tenure Of
The judges AID make them elective, it would be
important f. change tie Judicial Districts and base
the appointment Of the Judges on population and
judicial business. But the prospect Of such q
change seems quite too remote to mako the agta-
ton of the subect matter Of duty ut this juncure
Considering The present partisan character Of the
Court and tie rule which exists FOR filing vaoan-
cies that may occur, we can entertain no sanguine
hopes for its regeneration light out of the nine
present Judges who compose The Court are ready
to spread Slavery over all the Territories Of the
United States, 20 Just as great extent as their de-
csions and their volunteered opinions will carry il.
II viii take loEg time TO get that majority re-
yersed. under the most favorable circumstances.
Ard we thiLk i far more feasible task to destroy
the authority Of the Court as tribunal for the set
tlement of political questions, than to get it the
right side. We are thus indifferent 10 any efforts
TO improve liz character in this respect but should,
on the contrary be disposed to do what We could
10 render il unit on all such doctrines as that the
Federal Constitution recognizes property in slaves
that the same instrument carries Slavery wherever
il goes; that the proceedings in Kansas have all
been regular and legal, ard that the rejection Of
Kansas under the LecornptOn scandal would be
perfdors vocation If the rights Of Slavery and tie
the Court on these points would now be eight TO
one and We are decidedly in favor Of making it
unanimous. We out BIT not to be singular in this
desire, since al must recognize the advantage Of
hayiDg body like the Supreme Court rendered as
authoritative ss possble in its expeditions Of Con-
stitutODal law.
Tie Commercial, IL discussing this question, has
tahcn up poetic against which We desire TO
enter prompt protest. 1t saJs the Supreme
Court is "the judicial representative Of the sove
" reignity Of each State" We regard this rs .
heresy which, if acted on and carried
out, would in the end worn the overthrow Of our
Federal Union, AID with il the rights Of the States
ard the only sure gusront! Of the personal liberty
Of the citizen The States themseves are the only
shelter and guard Of their own reserved rights.
Ours is not q consolidated government, and was
never Intended TO be SUCH The Supreme Court
is not the true nor natural nor constitu-
tiona! depoi.tcry OF the political rights of the
States, and il is vested with no controlling
authority to define or limit them. The inter
probation Of the Federal Constitution, so far as it
relates TO the reserved rights Of the States and
so far rs il bears upOu the personal liberty of the
citizen. b.ongs exclusively TO the parties to that
Constitution Those parties are the States IN their
independent capacity. We have firm and
growing conviction that the liberties of the
AMERICAN people are only to be preserved BY
holding fast to this idea. We repudiate
utterly the al omi,sble notion that handful ofpo
lit;csl subsiterns Of the Federal Executive, his
creatures and tools appointed on partisan grounds
and for political reasons are to be permitted to sit
in Judgment on the political rights of great States
where those rights come in conflict with the e1er-
else Of that same Federal authority. If the Su-
rreme Court behaves well enough to warrant
general confidence in ii safe depository of pri-
yste righte, 60 be IT, We shall not needessy quar-
rel with this view Of its utility. But safe depos-
tory of the political rights of the Ststes II never
can be- Its very constitution iorbds the des, and
we protest against the sentiment that it is to be so
regarded. The time approaches for rediscussion
of fundamental principles touching the interpreta-
tion of the Federal Constitution uuder the light of
half century of reelection and observation of its
workings. and we rejoice in the hope that the doc
trne of State Rights last to be reared above the
nists Of Virginia sbstrsctionism and planted upon
clear solid ground. The theories Of ancient Icder-
allsm in regard to the rights and powers Of the
States though the offspring Of wise heads ard hon
est hearts, must give way before the advancing
footsteps OF radical and clear-sighted democratic
sentiment.
The worst thpg that has besallen Mr.. Seward in
consequence of his late disclaimer of allegiance TO
e H..