The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1859-02-16
is HE A FRIEND OF THE CONSTITUTION THE
BOSTON ADVERTISER AND THE BRITISH sYs

SO cannot comprehend why the U,ion should in
sst this late day upon compliance with the Jeiier-
son standard, that persons holding federal offices
should be friends of the constitution. The Adver-
tiser is entitled to frank avowal, on our part, of
the motives which prompted the utterance of our
opinions upon this subject We saw, or thought
we saw, in the policy of The republican party dis
position TO overrue the constitution 10y the enforce
ment Of certain extreme anti-savery doctrines-to
set up what is called ''higher law in its place If
we were right in our impressions in this respect the
occasion for exacting the strictest enforcement of
the rule referred to is more than obvious. There
are two ways at least, Of exhibiting hostility TO the
government of the Union: First, by an open denun-
citation Of the constitution; secondly by seeking its
practical subverson, by the exercise of powers in
the general administration unwarranted by its pro
visions. The latter we regard by far the most
Objectionable and reasonable. For instance, the
federal government was established by the States.
They were all, excepting Massachusetts,, slave
States They recognised slaves basis of rep
resentaton in the lower house of Congress. IL
is manifest they did not intend 10 create anti
slavery government; and the effort which is being
made by the Advertiser and its republican associ-
aes to prescribe slavery by the action of Congress-
is subyefsive of the constitutions Hence we reach
ernment should be intrusted to republicans They
may be honest but they misguided They may
profess to be the friends of the constitution but
they its worst enemies because they propose to
force into the administration under it, doctrines
which are utterly repugDant TO it provisions. In
bringing into Congress the question Of slavery and
subjecting the rights of shareholders to its action
a great wrong was done and grave political
error committed. This error gave birth to the Mis-
souri, compromise, by which Congress undertook to
divide the Union into two parts-to establish, so far
as the suhjectmatter involved was concerned, two
governments--to create by law positive inequality
between the North and the South prohibiting to the
former what was conceded to the latter. In truth,
the territories the property of the States, and
their colonization should have been left absolutely
free to the people of the States The enactment Of
the Missouri Compromise not only yolali IN of
the constitution, but it was grave political error,
destined to separate the two sections Of the Unions
and as far the forms of legislation could do it, to
legalize controversy between them 1t had this
effect even to the extent of entailing in the north
ern States of the Union, organized effort TO nulify
an express provision of the constitution for the
render Of fugitive slaves.
Now we insist that those who have been, or at
the present time engaged in precipitating conflict
between the North and the South ON the subject of
slavery are guilty of gross violation of the compact
Of union, and they the parties TO whom refer
red in the article TO which the Boston Advertiser
has thought proper to take exception.
The Advertiser puts case and we resate il, with
a view of bringing before the country the tone Of
republicanism in Massachusetts,. 1t says there are
many persons who prefer the British to the federal
constitution and yet ready TO support the latter
in all legitimate ways. The Advertiser thinks it
would be great injustice to apply Mr.. Jeiersons
test as to exclude such persons from federal of
fees That is not our reading of the rule norris it
the construction which the facts referred to by our
venerable contemporary sustain 1t says in Mr.. JEFF
Persons time there a large party in the coun-
try hostile to the government, They preferred the
British system to own. They regarded the lat
ter as too weak to maintain itself They asserted
that the first requisite of government stability,
and expressed the conviction that the first fruits of
the federal system would be found to be violent
outon, anarchy and ultimate paralysis. They were
convinced that too much power had been retained
by the States and too little conferred upon the central
government that the latter was a mere shadow of
the former, and would be wholly undistinguishable
when the first cloud should oversproad the heavens.
Such, however, not the opinions of Mr.. leifer-
son, and, in order to maintain the integrity of the
government he thought il wise to insist that the in
cumbents of federal offices should be the friends Of
the constitution
Now, it is clear to that persons who prefer
the British to the federal system should not be
trusted with public Offices under this government.
If that class is numerous in Massachusetts,, can
only say il is TO be regretted two accounts, at
least--because it would seem to indicate lack q
patriotism in the people, and because it would
prove them to be ignorant Of The trpe operations q
our own and the British governments Either one
of these characters is sufficient TO exclude them from
federal appointments There are individuals enough
in the country who are honest, capable, and friendly
to the constitution TO discharge the duties Of The
public aices. They should be selected especially
over those who proclaim preference for other sys-
TENS over our federal institutions. But since we
are discussing the subject propose 10 go little
further II is by no means clear that allegiance