Kenosha tribune & telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1856-1859, 1859-04-07
Speech Of Carl schurz.

Huibudy evening laSls was one VI us
tingllished ability. Mr.. Schurz, altho'
foreign born al:d having only few
years ago adopted this country as his
home, nevertheless exhibits . remarka |
BILE knowledge ofour institutions. With
the opinions of the founders Of our COY
ernment, and tie history Of the leading
statesmen Of the country, he has made /
himself familiar. His speech was made
up of facts and logical arguments.
Although the issue is past on which
the speech was especially intended to
bear, yet the great principles commended
for by Mr.. Schurz, viii continue to be
discussed before the country they will
enter largely il. TO the Presidential con
test ofl86o. Mr., Schurz truthfulIy re-
marked that the modpW democratic
party, have practically repudiated the
doctrines Of Jefferson on the question Of
State Rights, AUD have in their place
adopted those Of Daniel Wcb5tcr, the
great embodymrn. Of Federalism. He
dissected the States rights theory Of
Daniel Webster with mastery skill,
showing it to be in direct opposition to
the principles laid down by Jefferson.
On the question Of jurisdiction Of the
u. S. Supreme COURT oyer the State
Courts, we have room only for the fol-
lowing extract from the speech:
"I'he whole question, then, turns OH the
matter of thssappellate jurisdiction Of
| the United States Supreme Court over
the State Court. The speech which / de-
! livcred few evenings since at Milwau-
kee contains Enlargement on that point,
to which would respectfully refer you. 1t
is based upon the fact, that there are two
distinct and different systems Of Judicial
organizations III the United States.
The one is the judiciary, of the States,
and the other tie Federal judiciary. APP.
pellate Jurisdiction eau be exercised only
by superior over an inferior Court i'll
the same Judicial system. But the State
Courts being not mentioned in the Con
stitution nor in any manner referred to,
the appellate Jurisdiction vested in the
Federal Supreme Court can apply only
to the judicial system GREAT ed by it and
the only one mentioned in that article
Of the Constitution, that is to say the in
fePior Federal Courts and not to the
State Court. II this position is correct
and the attempt to controvert it is yet
to be made-where is then, the appel
late jurisdiction Of the United States SUI
lpreme Court over the Courts of the
States? Where is then the exclusive
and final jurisdiction Of the Federal iu-
dietary over questi0s Of constitutional
lty? Where is then the exclusive author
lty OF the General Government, TO de.
fine its own powers Mr. Webster points
to the Constitution and says, there it is
" ask, a0here in the Constitution? and
receive no answer. 1t is like the ghost
IN hamlet. Lo, behold there it is
Here 1T comes! But you cannot lay
your hand upon it, and the rising day
does not show us it's trace"
1t may be remarked that no demo
cratic newspaper or democretic lawyer
IN this state has ever yet been able to
tell us in what part Of the Constitution
the power is found for the exercise of
authority over the State Courts. So al
so, when our modern democratic lights
: have been asked again and again tie tell
MS where in the constitution, 10 found
the authority for striking down the
: right of trial by jury and the writ of ha
g beas corpus, they are as dumb as wood
en- statutes. The power of the Judges
of the U. S. Supreme Court to decide
on the constitutionality Of State laws
treated by Jefferson in the following
language
"Certainly,Mere is not qcord IN til,
Constitution achich Ats giuen that po,o
er to them more than to tile ececutict
Branches
The abandonment by the democratic
, party of its old principles of its deser
ton of the doctrines of Jefferson and
Madison, and its recent embrace of the
Federal vagaries of Daniel Webster
were eloquently set forth by Mr.. Schurz
as follows:
The Democratic party have sacrificed
to the slave power almost all they had:
their original principles. their conscien,
ces, their honor, even their power in
the free States. But they always affec-
ted certain reverence for the stern and
consistent Democrat, whom they called
their father. That man was Thomas
Jefferson. They have overcome that
weakness also. The Slave power wills
it, the fugitive-sl act is in danger.
and they sell their father with as little
scruple as they sold their principles.
They betray him not even with a kiss.
but they kick him most unceremonious-
y aside and throw themselves into the
arms of another prophet, whom, not ma.
ny years ago they considered the great
enemy of Jefferaonian principles, and
tor whom they could not find words of
abuse strong enough they throw them.
selves into the arms of Daniel Webster
No, worse than that; they attempt to
construe Jetferson'S Democracy by the
rules of W ebster's Federalism. They
libel their father and call it vindica.
ton To me, sir, thisis not astonishing.
NO theory OF government was over adj
yocated IN this country which agreed
SO well with the nature and the preten-
sions Of the slave power, as the doct
rlnes OF the FederaliSt There is an old
tederalist in the Presidential chair. and
the party acknowledges another old Fed.
eralIst in their Supreme anthnritx WI