The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-12-22
THE NATIONAL ERA: WASHINGTON D. G, DECEMBER 22 1859

| such word in it2 Is there anything that looks
| like it? Why not ask me if it is part of the
| Republican creed to keep out of the Union a
State applying for admission into the Union, the
| Constitution Of which provides that her people
| shall elect her own Governor We have never
| said So What right have you to assume any
| such thing2 1t is no part of our creed, as laid
| down in our platform, to refuse State admis-
| sion into this l Mon because she may or may not
| have Slavery Look into it see if you can find
any such thing. Why, then, PROFOUND ques-
tion founded upon hypothesis which has no
| foundation in the creed of the party2
If the Senator wants my individual opinion,
he can have that. have no concealments.
stated it here at the first session of Congress
| served. stated that it was not, with me- a
| fundamental principle that State should not
| come into this Union as slave State | would
regret the application of State of that cbarac-
| ter but have adopted it as no part of my po-
| litical faith, that under no possible circum-
stances shall State be admitted into this
| Union that tolerates Slavery. The Republican
party is not to be charged with having assumed
the ground that State may not be admitted
| into the Union that has Slavery. The old Re-
publican party, from which we learn our princi-
Piles, did not keep slave States out, although
| they provided against the extension of Slavery
into all territories, when they were not prohb-
|
| if we do that we will never, trust, be troubled
with the application of slave State for admis-
| sion.
The Senator says that the Supreme Court has
decided that slaves may be legally held in Ter
ritory. l deny it. The Supreme Court has de-
cided no such thing The Supreme Court has
no power to lay down political doctrines in this
country. 1t may decide a case that comes be-
| fore it, and by the decision of the Court in that
| / MIL RI he do
eide that bred Scott had no right to bring a suit
in the United States courts, and that is all it de-
cided. That decision is final to him in that par
ticular case; but, when the judges of the Court
travelled out of the record, and undertook to lay
down political principles for this Government they
| departed, in my judgment, from the line of their
duty, and the expression of their opinions is en-
titled to no more credit with me, upon political
questions than the expression ofthe opinion of the
same number of gentlemen off the bench. Why sir,
there had been decisions involving the question
of the right to govern the Territories before the
present Chief Justice presided. Look back, sir,
| Mr.. MASON in the chair, to the doctrine promul-
| gated by your own Marshall, the ablest lawyer
| that ever sat on that bench, a Southern man.
In one of his opinions, which is the opinion of
| the whole and not of divided Court he says,
that in legislating for the Territories Congress
| possesses the combined powers of the Federal
and State Government If so, and if State
| Government may prohibit Slavery then Con-
| gress, possessing in Territory the powers of a
| State Government and of the Federal Govern
ment combined, may dc the same thing; and
| where is your reverence for the doctrines of the
| Supreme Court, when you attack that decision
| Sir for sixty years that was the doctrine of the
| country, aequiesced in by all parties Why did
| you assail it, and open up this exciting ques-
! ton 2 | deny that any such decision has been
made as that Slavery exists in a Territory, or
that the owner of slave has a right to take him
to a Territory, and hold him there as a slave.
| believe, sir, that l have answered. have
certainly endeavored to do so-the questions
which the Senator from Florida propounded to me.
Mr.. YULEE. Is the Senator proposing to leave
| the subject2
Mr.. TRUMBULL. Yes, sir; propose to leave
that point.
Mr.. YULEE. / am very sorry to trouble the
! Senator. But suppose the inhabitants of Ter
ritory chose to recognise Slavery, and to legis-
late with reference to the protection of that
| property and, without undertaking to discuss
with him whether the courts have already de-
clared that the right of property in slave is not
changed by migration to Territory, suppose a
local law of the Territory authorizes it, and sup
| pose the courts of the Territory and the courts
of the United States sustain the legality of it.,
will then the party to which the gentleman be-
| longs feel themselves bound to legislate for the
slaves within that Territory l am not speaking
! of territory in which there was any previous
/ istence of Slavery x but Territory in
which the inhabitants choose to recognise Sla-
very and to legisate for it, and in which the
courts sustain it; would it be incumbent upon
| the gentlemans party under this platform TO
| legslate to exclude it2 That is what want to
! know.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr.. President, in my judg-
ment, they should exclude it, as was done in the
cases of Indiana and Illinois, when Territories,
and whose inhabitants were refused permission
to introduce Slavery when they asked it of Con-
gress.
If the Supreme Court of the United States
should make decision so utterly variant from
the repeated decisions of the courts in the South
ern States, and of the former decisions of the
Supreme Court itself, as to say that one person
had a right to hold another as a slave in Ter
ritory by virtue of any action Of the inhabitants
OF a Territory, in defiance of Congress, | would
acquescer in the decision of the court as to the
particula case. If A sued for his freedom, and
the cour decided that he was not entitled to it,
| would not revoutionize the Government upon
that bu t it would be decision in that case, and
in that case only, and | would contest it on the
morrow in the next. | would contest it day by
day, I'm til the court was reformed, and another
Marshall put at its head who should administer
the law as our fathers made it.
Mr.. YULEE. l do not ask the Senator's opln-
ion. / ask him to expound the platform.
Mr. TRUMBULL. l have expounded it. 1t de-
MES ny such right Your hypothetical case will
never arise We deny that a court will ever
make such decision and if it should, we will
resort to the constitutional means, to the ballot
box, to the people; we will appeal from the ex-
position of our political rights by men dressed in
gowns to the great body of the people, who make
Judges and Presidents too.
Mr. YULEE. You would legslate to exclude
it2
Mr.. TRUMBULL. We would legslato to ex-
clude it and the decision of case would no
more establish Slavery in Territory, except as
to the individual case, than has your decision as
to bred Scott, that he could not sue in the Fed
eral courts, established the fact that Congress
could not legislate to keep Slavery out of Ter
ritory a decision which scarcely justice of
the peace in the State of Illinois would have
made Why sir if individual had come be-
fore one of our justices with claim exceeding
the jurisdiction of justice of the peace, and the
Justice had examined it, and had seen that he
had no jurisdiction, and then had gone on and
investigated the case, and said how he would
have decided if lie had had jurisdiction, think
the whole community would have laughed at
his folly. That is exactly what the Supreme
Court of the United States has done in the bred
Scott case. The idea that the Supreme Court
of the United States can establish political prin-
ciples in this country is a article in the creed
of the Democratic party. 1t was not the former
doctrine of the present Chief Magistrate of the
country. 1t was not the doctrine of Thomas
Jefferson. He regarded the Supreme Court as a
set of sappers and miners, digging under the
vert and destroy it.
Mr. YIJLEE Now then I would turn the