Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-06-27


protects against violation right acquired under the
constitution and laws of State. 81
As far back as in 1S46 had occasion to publish
ny opinion on what has been called "squatter SOW
,reignty." then said |
ut would DO easy enough to show that mere |!
temporary government owing its existence and all
It's powers to act Of Congress, and that of doubt
u consttutonality organized because there are not
people enough to sustain a government. for them
selves, cannot assume to fix and rster the funda
mental institutions of society, Lot only for them
selves but for the much lerger humber who are ex-
pected and encouraged by the general government to
come after them; excluding whom and what they
please from vast extent Of common territory, and
admitting Only whom and what they may choose" !
And again, in speech which delivered in the
House of Representatives. in December, 1856, /
said:
THAT such body Ia territorial legislature] pos
sesses power to annul rights of property acquired
and held under the common law and constitutions of
fifteen States Of the Union, appears to me 7ropo-
sition too monstrous to be entertained for moment
in nation not prepared to revert to barbarsm and
anarchy.
For my part do not think it 1.-THE establishment
of what shall be, or what shall not be- property
rightful subject of legislation and hence do not
think the Kansas and Nebraska act, or the Consti
tuition confers any such power on the legislature,
and am satisfied the Supreme Court will so decide,
if the question should ever arise.
Will the Democratic party, especially will the
southern portion of it. fall into the laid for it
oy the Fillmore men of the South and the black Re-
publicans of the North? Shall We quarrel over the
bone of contention cast into midst by the hon.
orabe gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Humphrey
MARSHALL Whatever others may do, will not. l
do not believe the Kansas Nebraska bill empowers
the territorial legislature to exclude the STAKEHOLDER
with his property; but am willing for that ques-
ton to take the course Of other constitutional ques
tons, and be decided by the courts, as the bill in
tended it should be decided"
The opinions then expressed remain unchanged,
and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court
in the bred Scott case has verified my prediction
to what its decision would be. If there is doubt
as to what decided in that case the court is the
proper tribunal to interpret its decisions and
as politician, want no better platform to stand
upon on judicial question than decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States. BY contem.
poraneous pledges, and by every consideration of
sound principle, the party to which am attached
stands bound to respect differences of opinon-and
to tolerate them, too-in all those who, in good
faith will stand to and abide by the decisions of the
Supreme Court on this question of squatter SOW
ereignty.
This question was discussed when the Kansas and
Nebraska bill was pending in 1854 Some said the
people of Territory had right to legslae against
slavery before their admission into the Union 9TH
ers said that under the Constitution, they could not
possess exercise any such right. All agreed that
the extent of their right under the Constitution,
was judicial question, to be decided by the Su.
preme Court; and all agreed to abide by the decis-
ion of the court when it should be made. And. in
order that the courts might be open for the decision
Of the question, the ninth section of the bill provi-
ded that appeals might lie taken from the territorial
courts to the Supreme Court of the United States,
in all cases invoving title to slaves without
gard to the value Of the NATTER property title in
controversy" showing clearly that the bill contem-
plated the settlement of this question by the courts
and not by Congress. Otherwise, resident in
Territory would not have been allowed an appeal to
the Supreme Court in case in which such appeal
is not allowed to the citizen of State
In 1856 the question existed 4 precisely the same
dimensions and having the same bearings as at
present We did not make 1t test then least of
all, did We say that we could not, without sacri-
flee of principle act with those who differed from us
in opinion as to how the Court would probably de-
eide the question? Ifwehad done so, Mr. Fremont
would now be President instead of Mr. Buchanan
What reason can be assigned for making it test
now, which was not equally cogent in 1856? None
whatever
To the second proposition I also give my assent
To protect persons and property within the limits
of its jurisdiction is the sole purpose for which
legislature is instituted, and, when it fails to dis
charge that duty, it is recreant to its trust and
should meet the condemnation of every honest cit-
zen. Amongst people virtuous enough for self
government such dereliction from duty as fail
to pass laws for the protection of the citizen in
the enjoyment of property declared to be his by the
highest courts of the land will meet the condemna
ton it deserves and hurl the faithless legislators
from the places they unworthily FILL The passage
Of laws hostile to property would make good men
pray for despotisrn, to save them from ruthless an
archy.
But, unfortunately we know that the Abolition
ist scrupes at no outrage, and glories in that of
which other men would be ashamed He is restrain
ed by no constitutional Inhbitons and is ever anxi-
to signalize his zeal by outrage and fraud Sup
pose they shall attempt to perpetrate the outrage
here alluded 10, as they have actually done in Kan
sas and Nebraska, and as have no doubt they will
do wherever they have the majorty-what remedy
| have We?
This brings me to the third and main proposition.
If they attempt to exclude us. or to deprive us Of
our property, to harass us by actual legislation,
the remedy is clear and will be efficient so long as
the federal judiciary is kept pure Any aggrieved
citizen can contest the consttutionality of the law,
and when the court has decided in his favor as the
bred Scott decision assures it will decide, the
PRESIDENT is bound to see Its decree obeyed and for
that purpose can use the whole military and naval
resources of the country. If the executive arm is
not sufficiently strong for the purpose under exist
ing laws it is the duty Of Congress to pass such ad
ditional laws as may be necessary to enable the
President to discharge efficiently this his first and
highest duty under the Constitution. This is as
much protection as any of us have or can have
against bad laws under constitutional government
and more than we could have under any other; and
if it is not perfect it is because human institutions
cannot entirely eradicate human vices, nor bride
the selfish and malevolent passions of individuals
The remedy through the courts would be effec
tive to prevent territorial legislature from assail
ing the slave owner by hostile legislation Bu
what slave owner would leave the fertile lands, and
the friendly laws and congenia society of our South
ern States to settle in the midst of Abolitionists
where he knew that nothing less than chains woult
secure his slave from running away or being stolen
and where constantly harassed with law suits ant
criminal prosecutions, he could only be maintained
in the possession Of his property by the army an,
navy of the United States?