The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1860-05-09
The Question Of Principle.

EE- Our neighbor. last week, recurs
again to the question Of principle in the
two political parties of the nation, and
says he fails to see that we have indicat-
ed any authority by which those princi-
pies may be discussed. Whether this
may be attributed to the editors dull.
ness, or the obscurity with which we
have expressed ourself we shall not at
tempt TO decide; but certain it is that we
attended TO indicate basis for argument
in this matter, and to give standard of
authority whereby the question of prin-
ciple may be tried and adjudged. 1t
seems, however, that we stated it plainly
enough for the editor to understand that
that standard is the constitution, and
therefore we are inclined to think that we
were sufficiently explicit Our neighbor,
however, thinks this profession of re-
spect for that instrument mere subterfuee
and pretence, SO long as we refuse to ac-
knowledge the absolute supremacy and
binding force of the interpretations Civ.
en- TO it by the Supreme Court of the
United States and he talks Indignantly
of such /" heresy," declaring it to be ut
tery subversive of the constitution, and
destructive of the liberties of the people.
lie speaks Of it as if it was a new and
monstrous ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS in the
extreme. And yet strange to say, it
was always good Democratic doctrine
until the last three or four years, when
the interest of slavery required in this,
as in other things, change Of front. We
do not claim to be constitutional law
yer, nor legal expounder Of any kind.
and therefore thought it best, in discuss
ing the question two weeks since, to con-
fine ourself TO quotations from other au-
thorities. We quoted THOMAS JEFFRR-
son, ANDREW JACKSON, and JAMES b.
cHANAN, and might have added BRECKIN-
RIDGE, MARTIN VAN buren,, TooMBs, and
others, to show that the Supreme Court
has not heretofore been considered infal-
lble, nor has its power 10 interpret the
constitution for both the other depart
ments of government been always con-
coded. These men were not only good
Democrats. but should be presumed to
know something of the theory of our
government, of the requirements of the
constitution, Of the question of reserved
and delegated powers. Of the relations to
each other Of the several departments of
the governments Of the extent and limit
OF The powers of each department. &c.
Nor was it all theory with them. JET
FERsoN and JACKSON, at least, carried
their views 10 the extent Of acts, and
strange to say. the party that is now so
fierce in denunciation Of those who re-
fuse to regard the court as absolute,
claims to be the very party which then.
and from that time down, has endorsed
those acts. Mr.. HEDGES, day, as he
doubtless has done before, will applaud
the stand taken by JEFFERSON against the
old Sediiion Law, and that by JACKSON
against the United States Bank, notwth-
standing tic decision Of the Court in "a
ror of the copstitutionality of those mea-
sures and yet he has the GOODNESS to ar
range for hcresy such Republicans as
presume to argue, as did those two great
lights OF the Democratic party. that The
several departments Of the government
are equal and independent, and are re-
quired 10 decide for themselves what is
and ahat is not, constitutional What,
n this point, can you say against such
Republicans that will moi apply with ten
old force 10 the leaders and members of
he old Democratic party, whose wisdom
,nd patrielisn and principles you have
.Iways extolled, and still exalt? What
good caIse can you show for SO meekly