St. Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (St. Charles City [Charles City], Iowa) 1857-1861, 1859-06-16

NUMBER "a.

a new question they would be with
me, and that they yield the strong
leanings of their own minds to the
force of the rule of res adi1tdicata alone,
proves that this question is not set.
tied.
The truth is, it is not until recently
that the mass.of intelligent and inqui-
ring mind in this country has been
brought to bear upon this question
Ii required the enactment and enforce
ment OF the fugitive slave act Of 1850,
overriding the most sacred and funda.
mental guarantees of the Constitution
aud disregarding in its provisions
even the decencies of legislation, as
II Tor the very purpose of irritation
and humiliation, and the fine and inn
prisonment under it of nhus men for
the exercise Of the instructive virtues
of humanity, to awaken general in
quiry. That inquiry is now going for
ward. And so surely as the matured
| convictions Of the mass of intelligent
mind in this country must ultimately
control the operations of governmen:
III all its departments, so surely is
this question not settled. When it is
settled right, then it will be settled,
and not till then.
But, cotemporaneous construction
is appealed to. l admit fits weight,
and its title to respectful considera-
tion. But cotemporaneous construc.
tion speaks with divided voice. 1t
is true, Congress, as early as 1898,
leglslated for the return of fugitives
from labor. But nearly if not quite
every one Of the old States had also
legislated on the same subject in full
tilment of what they deemed mat
ter of constitutional obligation rest
ing on them. And such legislation
on the part of the States, old and new,
continued until the Supreme Court of
the United States, in the Prigg case,
as late as 1912, assumed for the fed
dral government exclusive authority
over the subject. And these who ap-
pealed to contemporaneous construc-
tion should themselves respect it.
From the foundation of the Govern
ment until within the last ten years,
Congress claimed and exercised, with
out question, full and complete legis-
lative power over the territories of the
United States and as early as 1928,
in American Insurance Company VS..
Canters, Il Peters, SAG, the Supreme
Court of the limited States. Chief JUS
tice Marshall delivering it's opinion,
unanimously decided that in territories
Congress rightful'y exercises the
" combined powers Of the general and
Of State government" Yet, in the
recent case of Drcd Scott vs.. Sanford,
90 Howard, 393, all this is overturn-
ed and disregarded, and the whole
past theory and practice of the gov
ernment in this respect attempted to
be revolutioniaed by judicial ipsc
dLtlt We are thus invited by that
Court back to the consideration of frs.
principles and neither il nor those
who rely on it's authority have right
to complain if we accept the invita-
tion.
l know Of TO way, other than
through the action OF the State
Governments, in which the reserved
rights and powers Of the States can be
preserved, and the guarantees of indi-
vidual liberty be vindicated. The his
tory Of this country, brief as it is, al
ready shows that the federal Judicial
ry is never behind the other depart.
ments OF that government, and often
foremost, in the assumption of nom
granted powers And let it be final
ly yielded, that the federal govern
mcnt is, in the last resort, the author.
ity, Judge of the extent of its own
powers, and the reservations and lin
itations of the constitution, which the
trainers of that instrument so jealous
ly endeavored firmly to fix and guard,
will soon be, if they are not already.
obliterated and that government, the
sole possessor Of the only means Of
revenue, in the employment Of which
the people can be kept ignorant of the
extent of their own burdens, and with
its overshadowing patronage, attract
inS to its support the ambitious by
means Of its honors, and the mercena-
ry through the medium of its emolu-
ments, will speedily become, if it be
not already, practically omnipotent.
These were my opinions freely de-
clared for years before had the hon
or of seat on this bench and hav-
ing learned nothing during the pen
dency of these cases TO change, but
much to confirm them, know no rea-
son why l should hesitate to avow
them now.
give my voice in favor Of the dis.
charge of the relators.