Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-08-17
CAss to have declared what his course would have
| been ,,nder -r,nh Otrr,,rnatn ,,nau he .adod.

CAss have declared what his course would have
been under such circumstance he added;
Sir. his objection to tie Wimot Proviso, being
FOUNDED or his opinion of aohd the Constitution daor
szed, and not upen any opinion favorable to the ex
tension of slavery, Il lcOd hare ben an oct Of inasliGt
bDdaess 10 haze declared that he tood disregard he for
eT practice Of goUeyTune1 and given weight to the
precedents of the Missouri Compromise and the Ore
9oR territorial dcts.n
Il will thus be seen that Mr.. BELL after having I
aided the Northern AboIitionists in defeating the
CLAYTON Compromise, which was intended o.do |
justice to the South and after having expressed
himself gadthat the Oregon bill had passed. he
believed its defeat would have done injury at the
North" sought to make precedent of that act, as
one reason why it |" would have been an act of unu
sual boldness I'm Gen. CAss) to have declared that
he would disregard the former practice of govern
ment2n and vetoed the Wilmot Progiso, if it had
been applied to Territories, part of which lie South
of the old Missouri Compromise line,
" We also learn from this speech of Mr. BEIL's,
July 80, 1850, for the first time the reasons which
he had to assign for joining with HAsn1N, HALE and
CoRwN, in defeating the Clayton Compromise, two
years previous. These are, as win found
on page 1888 Of Appendix to Congressional Globe,
vol p, part I'd, that he had pretty clear percep
ton of the dssentions likely to grow out Of these
ritoral questions, and in his Judgment there were
two points which it become the policy of the Gov
ernment to pursue: first, that all the questions
connected with the new Territories should be ad
justed as speedily possible and, secondly, that
the adjustment when made, shoudibe final and ir-
revocable, leaving no open question to tester and
rritate in the public mind For these reasons Twas
not satisfied with what is called the Clayton Com
promise bill. In addition to the objection inter
posed 10 my mind, groOoing out Of the bad pol
icy of uro1cing upon the judicial department Of the
GOverupet the responsibility of deciding question in
its nature political and giving rise to such intensity
of interest aud excitement believe the adoption Of
that measure would only postpone, to an indefinite
period, the decision of a controversy which all the
while, would be assuming more and more agra
waited complexion" 80
1t will thus be seen that Mr.. BELL was not willing
to leave the decision of this disputed question be-
tween the North and South, to the Constitutional
rights of the latter to the decision of the Court;
but wanted it left to the mere will of dominant
majority in Congress. The same majority that ap-
piled the Wilmot ProvisO TO the Oregon territorial
bills, he willing should continue to sit upon and
determine the constitutional rights of the South is
not the effect of such an argument to break down
all Constitutional guarantees and leave those States
that may chance to be in minority at the mere
mercy of dominant and often corrupt and fanatical
majority? Where is the safety of the South-where
is the protection to the guaranteed rights of the
States-if such doctrine is to prevail? Is it not
species of that "higher-lawism" for which the
leaders of the Black Rpublicaae party has been
mathematical by Constitutional national men
throughout the country. This o1ious doctrine of
Mr.. BELL, conceived in opposition to the CLAYTON
Compromise, was more deliberately stated at a
subsequent period, when the Supreme Court had
determined the very question to whichhe was allud
ing, in their bred Scott decision, and all Abolition
dom was in blaze We allude to his speech against
the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton
Constitution which, referring to the decision of
the Supreme Court determining the rights of the
South to equal enjoyment of the Territories, he
said: .s#a
whatever may be the decision of the Supreme
Court the power of Congress to interfere with the
question of slavery in the Territories and however
clear and well founded in principle and authority its
decisions may be- | have supposed that inasmuch
it is question of constitutional construction or
Interpretation, and relates to the Jurisdiction ant
"a department always more less under the in
fuence- of political considerations. the question
would not be regarded as permanently settled; and
that whenever in future. as heretofore, Congress
shall be called upon to legslate concerning terri
tory the question will again become the subject of
decision, and such decision as the majority shall
think proper to declare. Congress was never sway
ed by the opinion of the Supreme Court the ques
ton of its powers to establish National Bank,
will it be controlled by any of its opinions ques
lions involving political considerations
Every question of vital Importance is a political
question less, and according to this theory
of Mr. BELL, there is necessity in Black Republi
cans carrying out their present avOwed purpose of
T" revOlutonizing the Supreme Court !" it is only
necessary for them to break down the Democracy
and efectuay revolutionize the North, getting the
control of Congress and they will have all they
require to accomplish their ends What matters it
that we have Supreme Court to decide disputed
Constitutional points and determine the rights of the
minority well as of the majority? All matters,
says Mr. BELL of political character still remain
open for dominant majority to do as they please
Congress will not be controlled by any of its
opinions questions involving political considera-
tons" Was ever a more dangerous heresy pro-
mulgated by any who set himself up for al
American statesman! We appeal to the honest
thinking peope-every one of whom have rights to
be protected from the entertainments of licentious
power-to know if they will subscribe to such
sentiments and elevate the author of them to the
Executive chair of the nation?