Daily national Democrat., 1860-06-06
The flag Hoisted.


The Mary yaEila- Appeal, under its new pro-
prietorship has hoisted the Republican flag,
and promises to do battle for Republican
principles. Il avows the main principle of
the Republican party to be. opposition to the
extension Of slavery. and claims that Congress
has perfect right to prohibit slavery in the
Territories Like the Republican papers gen
orally, it plants itself upon ground OF direct
hostility to the Supreme Court of the United
States for, if that Court has decided any
thing at all, it has certainly decided that
Congress has no power, under the Constitu-
ton, to prohibit slavery in the Territories
As to what power the Territorial Legislatures
possess over the subject, the Court has left
the question an open one, to be adjudicated
hereafter, but on the question of the power
of Congress, there is no equivocation what
ever-the language of the Dred Scott De-
cision is plain and emphatic, and declares, in
the most positive manner, that the Constitu-
tion gives Congress no power to prohibit
slavery in the Territories. The Appeal,
therefore, in advocating Congressional pro-
hibiton of slavery in the Territories is max
ing deliberate and open war against the Su-
preme Court of the United States. 1t is an
ayowed enemy Of the Constitution of its coun-
try. for it denies or repudiates the authority
of that tribunal into whose hands the Consti-
tuition has placed the arbitrament of consti-
tutional questions. The Appeal would have
the Federal Congress defy and spit upon the
! Supreme Tribunal Of the land, and proceed to
legislate, regardless of the constitutionaliiy
or unconstitutiouality of the measures en-
acted. Daniel Webster well said, that dis
regard of the decisions of the Supreme Court
by the legislative or Executive authority of
the country would be a prelude to the GER
tain destruction of the Union. And we do
not see how it could be otherwise. Where
would be the protection Of the minority
against the tyranny Of an arbitrary majority,
without this tribunal Where would be the
rights of individual States, as against the
legislation of a majority Of the States in Con-
gress What uniformity of principle would
there be in legislation? What appeal from
the conflicting decisions Of the State Courts :?
What eoherency in the adjudications Of the
great questions of the rights of rerson and
property all over the Union? What but a
mass of confusion and strife and tumble Of
contradictory enactments and contradictory
decisions? The balance. wheel of the Gov
ernment would be gone. The great, final
arbitrator between the States or between the
different combined sections of the States,
would be absent at the time OF all times when
an authoritative decision would be most
needed and in the whirl and turmoil of an
tagonistic opinions, the Union would crumble
into pieces There must be some power,
somewhere in the framework of the Govern
ment, to settle constitutional questions. With.
out it, the Union is rope of sand.
We do not believe that any party which
would deny or disregard the authority of the
Supreme Court of the United States. can ever
command, successfully, the suffrages of the
American people.