The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-03-04
VOL. XII.

who would try to convince my judgment in sncb y
way. have good authority on this point ., :
it is authority that present for the speciaI 81
eht OF those who are disposed to read us lectnrs,
iateiy on the subject OF bowling to the opinion ~
the court. have law book in nv hand e
which wish to read one or two PASSAGES NJ
Supreme Court of one of the States of this T.
In giving the opinion which hold in NV h.
In speaking of the action Of the Supreme c.,
of the United States, says WI
Inc disregard OF this court TO the known will o.
makers OF inc constitution. as 10 the rule Of con,rp
Is equally exhibited IN anumber Of other cases.
" ln the cases OF Cohen Virginia and War;,
Butler rs. Georgia, in which il held that a St,,e ar
s9ep notwl.hsIandng the clear manifestation Of ibs
OF the makers OF the Constitution, M The amt pcr,
10 which have heretofore referred that The Co,
was not TO be so construed as 10 make STATE .uasi
But are not the decisions Of the supreme Co...
United States 10 govern this Is TO the rule al %.
the Constitution? They not any more lbar
ions OF that court are 10 be governed by the dsc,
''The Supreme Court of the United Stale. b,.,...
dicuoH over tnls court or over any department a..
Government Of this State.n --
wish to read another passage shown, d.
opinions entertained by the learned court 81. ~
gave the decision before me:
But say that am wrong in this opinion; sill T.
that the decisions OF the Supreme Court referrrt
precedents 10 severn this court.s a.
"Those decisions were mere partisan deci.io-.
oveTTued in the court which made Them a. - '' .-
majority Of the members Of the should b, go, a.
politics from the politics Of the members "a bo -.
decisions The doctrine that a decIsion of The s. ,-
Court of the United States is TO dictate a man,
him, Is IA doctrine avowed by a few I'M Inns ,.
Such doctrine would be an easy means OF u-rp-Tl.
a dynasty of principles, however false and
that would have 10 be done, would he 10 stun wuG &
of those principles Their decisions yycil ~ ti 10
Whatever they said the Constitution m-apr' N. 'g'
would have 10 vote IL TO mean. Parties on cous,,,,
qufsuo. s, could not arise. '.'
" But are these mere political decisions and ,.,
partisan judges" '' .'
Then the court go on to review the historic
the judges of the Supreme Court of the Tr;,.5
States, beginning with Judge Marshall. 70 SHOW
that they are mere partisans. There is apo,ls.
little extract should like to read.
Now, partisan decisions may do 10 bind The ro.rc.
party which the makers Of them happen to be- on n
They certainly bind no other party. And Tins has
The uniform practice OF all parties in This country m
Supreme Court said bank is constitutional. Vel bI,
charters have been vetoed by three several Pfr.lt
Madison, Jackson, Tyler
The same Court say they received q rpaD5s,.
from the Supreme Court of the United S,s,as
but treated it with contempt Sir. that is ifa
opinion of the Supreme Court Of Georgia dolly.
cred in the case of Padelford Il Co. u.s. the civ
of Savannah, in the fourteenth volume Of Geor,.,
Reports page 438.
If these are mere party decisions, let us under.
stand it. 1t seems that when the decisions ara
one way by the Supreme Court of the Urtei
States, gentlemen of the South saw &" the igjge.
are partisan judges they cannot settle consttu.
tional questions for US; those are political mat,
tiers" When, however, they undertake extra.
judicially to give opinions not called for BY the
point before them; to lay down doctrines f,
variance with the whole history and preceieuts
of the country from its very foundation. TO over.
turn the decisions of their own predecessors
greater men than ever they can hope 10 be. and ,l
reverse all the decisions Of the legislative DEPART
ment OF the Government, on questions Of po..-
ical character and description, on their own me-a
say-so we are told all this is law
Sir, was perfectly aware from the course 81.
proceeding, what this decision would be- Whqr
! saw the dictum, or the dogma, if you please To
call it so, laid down in the Cincinnati Platform
that there was no power in the people of Ter
ritory to exclude Slavery and when saw t-.
that question had been brought to the Supr,ua
Court of the United States, and that the Suprema
Court, after hearing the argument had adjourned
from one day before the election Of Presdeu
over to another day after the election of Pres-
dent, | knew what the strength of the SLAYER,
party was; and | felt what the decision was %
be; and felt, as well, and do not hesitate q.
say it here, that had the result Of that election
been otherwise, and had not the party triumphel
on the dogma which they had thus INTRODUCED
we should never have heard of a doctrine 50
utterly at variance with all truth so utterly de
titute of all legal logic so founded on error and
unsupported by anything like argument as is
the opinion of the Supreme Court.
should like if had time, to attempt TO dem
onstrate the fallacy of that opinion / have cl-
amned the view of the Supreme Court Of the
United States on the question of the power Of
the Constitution to carry Slavery into free terri
tory belonging to the United States and tell
you that believe any tolerably respectable law
yer in the United States can show, beyond all
question, to any fair and unprejudiced mind that
the decision has nothing to stand upon except
assumption, and bad logic from the assumptions
made. The main proposition on which that de-
cislon is founded; the cornerstone of il, without
which it is nothing without which it fails en-
tirely to satisfy the mind of any man, is this,
that the Constitution of the United States recOg-
misses property in slaves, and protects it as such
L deny 1t. 1t neither recognises slaves as prop
erty, nor does 1t protect slaves as property.
Fortunately for my assertion the Supreme
Court, in making that the very cornerstone Of
their decision, without which the whole fails,
state the clauses on which they ground these
sertions. On what do they found the assertion
that the Constitution recognises Slavery AS prop
ertyf On the provision of the Constitution t1
which Congress is prohibited from passing laa
to prevent the African slave trade for twenty
years; and therefore they say the Constitution
see that this constitutional provision, if it wOri
one way, must work the other If, by ALLOWING
the slave trade for twenty years, we recognise
slaves as property, when we say that at the end
of twenty years we will cease to allow it, or may
cease to do so, is not that denying them to be
property after that period elapses? Suppose
yield to the court all the force they demand and
admit that here is distinct recognition that tbs
is property, because we recognise that the AM
can slave trade may exist for twenty years: yeL
when we say that after that period has eapsr.
that protection shall no longer exist, do We not
say that after that period of time it no longer is
and ceases to be at the expiration o.
twenty years ? Certainly, if the argument vii
work the one way, it must work the other. i
you derive the power under the Constitution, be-
cause for twenty years it is property, you lose Il
when the twenty years elapse, by the same meth
cd of argument.
Again, the court say it is protected as proper
ty by the provisions that persons held to service
escaping from one State into another, shall be
delivered up. Are they not spoken Of as "pe,-
sons2" Are they spoken of as property j.
there anything said about their being property
Does not that provision of the Constitution appF
Just as well to white apprentices, held under TIE
laws of the different States for a term Of years
as 1t does to slaves2 Will you pretend that, D!
the Constitution of the United States, white per-
sons, held as apprentices for term of years, are
Certainly, no such position can Be
Your argument, if it works at all.
must go the whole length, and you must find
that the word "person" means property, AMI
may be regularly and legally construed as prop
erty. have not time now to pursue this topic
Then, sir, to sum up the substance Of my argu-
ment, wish TO say again, that what | consider
this original scheme to have been was TO assert
popular sovereignty in the first place with view
Of rendering the repeal of the Missouri comPTo,,
mise in some way palatable; then to deny it, anu
avow the establishment of Slavery; then TO legal
ze this by decision of the Supreme Court OF tue