Daily national Democrat. [volume] (Marysville, Calif.) 1858-1861, 1860-02-14
The Charge Sustained.

After having said chat the Federal Con
stitution is n compact between the States
he remarks "that il that compact is observe &c
and carried out in good faith there VIII h'
no necessity for dissolution OF the Union
But if il ehould be disregarded the Southern
states are no longer bound ty it, and have
right to withdraw from the coniederacy.
We were giving the substance of his views
not the exact words in which he expressed
them. He replies in this wise;
Now we said no such thing, nor nothing
hkeit We did say that others held TO tha'
doctrine and that was all we did say.
A very poor subterfugei The denial Is
not at all Dor. out 10y the language OF the
article upon which we were commenting.
In that article, he did, it is true, refer to the
views held by Others, but then he endorsed
those views in terms which are capable Of
but one construction. Now, here is what hs
said, and we call especial attention to e'ery
word of it. for We are going to fss'en Sc
ecssionism upon him:
"On the other hand we fad those, who
assert that the Union was @rmed by and be
tween the States, for their mutual and equal
benefit. and that the Federal Constitution IS
a contract between the States, which Is sacred
and inviolalle. They hold that if that com
mot Is observed aud carried out in good
| faith, there never will be any necessity Of
the dissolution of the Union, But If 1t
should be disregarded, and the rights guar
anteed under that instrument should be with
held by a tyrannical majority from mincri
ty. the Union no longer exists in the spirit
and meaning, which was intended 10y the
founders of that intrument, aud hence is a
mere shell. without the substance. They say
that when they cease to have justice done
them. the compact has been violated, that
they are no longer bound by it, and will
withdraw For holding these sentiments they
are branded as disulionists. We ask Whici
are the disunioniSts proper, those rho rioldt'
the Constitution and encrodch upon the right'
of others, or those who resist such eRcrodch-
ments We do not belive there is any res
pectable number of persons in the South who
desire disunion per sc. But they only lool
to it as last resort, in case they cannot get
their rights under the Constitution. Whicl
is ,0orse, those i0no propose to resist an tnfrdc
ton of their rights, or those toho irish to maxi
such intrdctioHP
| The Republican party are hostile to the
rights and interests of the Southern States -
| OF this there can be no doubt. The South
therefore, has good cause TO beiieue that should
the Republican party succeed upon this issue
Of hostility to them, their rights will be at
tackled, and hence, they say they will resist
such an attack upon them even at a sacrifice
of the Union
We believe that should Republican Pres
ident be elected, there will be great danger
..f, Lat, f,1- l.,
occur until he committed some overt ac
against the rights of the people of the South.
We have italicized the particular portion
of the above which to all intents and pur
purposes, endorses the doctrine of Secession
"For holding these sentiments" quoth tn
Express, "they are branded as disunionists
Only think OF It'll Because these men Sc
up the doctrine that a State, of its own indi
vidual authority, can judge for itself wheth-
er its constitutional rights have been invaded
by the General Government, and, if it think
they have, can withdraw from the Union
they are branded as Disunionists." In tn
name of God, what else are they
1--WE ask" continues the Express, " whicl
are the disunionists proper, those 'oho uioiat
the Constitution. and encroach upon the right
of others, or those who resist such encroach-
ments ?"
Be it observed now, in all this, that, ac
cording to the Secession doctrine, the individ
ual States themselves are to be the judges a,
to whether the Constitution has been violated
With this understanding, is not the above
last quoted interrogatory of the Express a
plain endorsement of Secessionism
(Which is worse" adds the Express, chose
who propose to resist an infrWction of their
rights, or those who wish to make such in
fraction 2"
We answer. infinitely worse are those who
Tin disregard of the tribunal in whose hands
they are bound by the Constitution to rest
their case assume to say for themselves that
their rights have been infraeted. The SUI
preme Court is to judge as to whether an act
Of the General Government, affecting the
rights of State, is constitutional or not.
1--WE believe" says the Express, "that
should a Republican President be elected
there will be great danger of dissolution
but we do not think it would occur until he
committed some ouert act against the rights OF
the people of the South"
This is Secessionism in one of its most de-
testable forms, for the Express cannot deny
that the complacent manner in which it
makes this declaration is as good an endorse.
ment of the position as it needs. The people
OF the South are themselves to Judge of this
overt act Of a Republican President,and with
draw from the Union if it does not jump with
their notions. The Secessionists do not mean.
by this term overt act, that they expect a Re-
publican President to order out the military
and command them to go and free the ne
groes of the South VI ct drmis Nothing of
the kind, they mean that if he shall recon-
mend to Congress any sort of legislation
which conflicts with their Interpretation of
their rights, or shall proceed to enforce any
law of Congress hostile to these same self.
interpreted rights; or shall proceed to make
appointments of Federal officers in the South
obnoxious to them, the Secessionists, or do
anything else, in the exercise of his Executive
functions, disagreeabe to their feelings and
wishes, they will 60 for dssolying the Union.
This is the whole meaning of the overt act
business
So much for the charge of Secessionsm
against the Express. And we are willing
now to leave it to the candid judgment Of
an intelligent public, whether that journal is
not Secession paper