Randolph County journal. [volume] (Winchester, Randolph County, Ind.) 1855-1862, 1860-12-06

then. are they invested with power 10 decide
the question, whether Slavery shall or shall
not exist within their limits. This Is On act
Of sovereign authority, and not Of subordi-
nate territorial legislation. Were u other
wise, then, indeed, would the equality Of the
States in the Territories be destroyed, and the
right Of property in slaves would depend, not
upon the guarantees Of the Constitution, but
upon the shifting majorities Of an irresponsi-
bic Territorial Legislature. Such doctrine,
from its intrinsic unsoundness, cannot long
influence any considerable portion OF our peo-
ple-much less can il afford a coed reason for
a dissolution Of the Union. The most palpa-
bic violations Of constitutional duty which
have vet been committed, consist IL the acts
Of different State Legislatures to defeat the
execution Of the Fugitive Slave Law. III
ought 10 be remembered, however, that for
these acts neither Congress nor any President
can be justly held responsible, having been
passed in violation Of the Federal Constitu-
ton. They are, therefore, null and void
All the Courts, both State and National, be-
fore whom the question has arisen, have from
the beginning declared the Fugitive Slave
Law 10 be constitutional. The single excep-
ton is that Of the State Court in Wisconsin,
and this has not only been reversed by the
proper appellate tribunal, but has met with
such universal reprobation tina, there can be no
danger from il as a precedent. The vitality
Of this law has been established over and over
again by the Supreme Court of the United
States, with perfect unanimity. II is founded
upon an express provision Of the Constitution,
requiring that fugitive slaves who escape
from service in one State to anothe shall be
delivered up TO their masters. Without this
provision, ii is well known historical fact
that the Constitution itself could never have
been adopted by the Convention. In one form
or another, under the acts Of 1898 and 1850
both being substantially the same-the Fugi-
tive Slave Law has been the law of the land
from the days of Washington until the pres
ent moment. Here then clear case is pre-
sented, in which il will be the duty of the
next President, az it has been my own, to act
with vigor in executing the supreme law
against the conflicting enactments of State
Legislatures. Should he fail in the perform
aIce Of this high duty, he will then have
manifested disregard of the Constitution and
laws, TO the great injury of the people Of
nearly one-hali Of the States Of the Union.-
But are we to presume i'm advance that he will
thus violate his duty? This would be nj war
with every principle of justice and Of Christ
ian charity. Let us wait for the overt act
The Fugitive Slave Law has been carried into
execution in every contested since the
commencement OF the present Administration,
though often II is 10 be regretted with great
loath and Inconvenience, and with considera-
bic expense 10 the Government. Let US trust
that the State Legislatures will repeal their
unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments.
Unless this shall be done, without unnecessary
delay, it is impossible for any power 10 save
the Union. The Southern States, standing on
the basis of the Constitution, have a right 10
demand this act Of justice from the States of
the North. Should il be refused them, the
Constitution, TO which all tho States are par
ties, will have been wilfully violated by one
portion Of them, in provision essential 10
the domestic security and happiness of the re-
mninder. In that event, the injured States,
after having first used all peaceful and con-
stitutional means TO obtain redress, would be
justified in revolutionary resistance 20 the
government Of the Union.
have purposely confined my remarks 10
revolutionary resistance, because 10 has been
claimed within the last few years, that any
State whenever il shall be their sovereign will
and pleasure, may secede from the Union in
accordance with the Constitution and without
any violation of the Constitutional rights Of
the other members of the confederacy that
N each became parties 10 the Union by the
vote of its own people assembled in convention,
SO any one of them may retire from the Union
in n similar manner, by vote Of such con-
venton. In order to justify secession as n
Constitutional remedy, IL must be on the prin-
cipie that the Federal government is n mere
voluntary association OF States, 10 be dissolved
Mt pleasure by any one Of the contracting par
ties. If this be SO, the Coniederacy is a rope
of sand, 10 be penetrated and dissolved by the
first adverse wave OF public opinion in any of
the States. In this manner our thirty-three
States may resolve themselves into as many
petty, Earring and hostile republics, each one
retiring from the Union without responsibility
whenever any sudden excitement might i'm
pei them TO such course. by this course, q
Union mi ght be broken into fragments in
few weeks, which cost our forefathers many
years OF toll, privaton and blood TO establish.
Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with
the Constitution il was framed with the
greatest deliberation and care: il was submitted
to conventions OF the people of the several
States for ratification its provisions were dis
cussed at length in these bodies composed of
the first men of the country. Its opponents
contended that IL conferred power on the Fed
eral Government dangerous 10 the rights Of
the States, whilst its advocates maintained
that under n lair construction Of that instru-
ment, there was no foundation for such ap-
prehensions. In that mighty struggle between
the first ntellects of this or any other country
il never occurred to any individual, either
among its opponents or advocates, TO assert or
even intimate that their efforts were all vain
labor because the moment that any State felt
herself aggricved she might secedc from the
Union. What crushing argument would
this have proved against those who dreaded
cred by the Constitution. The truth is, that il
was not until many years after the origin of
the Federal Government that such PROPOSE
ton was first advanced. IL was then met and
refuted by the conclusive arguments Of Gen
eral jackson, who, in his Message of 10th jan
uary, 1888, transmitting the multiplying ordi-
nance Of South Carolina 10 Congress, employs
the following language: The right of the
people of n single State to absolve themselves
at will, without the consent Of other States,
from their most solemn obligations, hazards
the liberty and happiness of the millions com
posing this Union, cannot be acknowledged.
Such authority is believed to be utterly repug-
nant, both TO the principles upon which the
general Government is constituted, and to the
objects which II was expressly formed TO at
tam"
IL j. not pretended that any clause in the
Constitution gives rountenance 10 such a the
ory-it is altogether founded upon inference
not from any language contained in the in
strumtnt itself, but from the sovereign char
actcr of the several States by which il was
ratified. But is il beyond the power of a State,
like On individual, to yield portion of its
sovereign rights 10 secure the remainder? In
the language OF Mr.. Madison, who has been
called the Father of the Constitution, IL was
formed by the States-that is, BY the people
IN each Of the States, acting in their highest
sovereign capacity-and formed, consequent
lv, by the same authority which formed the
State Constitution, nor is the Government Of
the United States created by the Constitution,
less Government in the strictest sense Of the
term within the sphere Of its powers, than the
governments created by the Constitutions OF
the several States are within their several
spheres. IL is, like them, organized into Leg
islative, Executive and Judiciary depart
ments. II operates like them directly on per-
sons and things, and like them il has at com
mand physical force for executing the pow
ers committed To IL, and il intended to be
perpetual. and not TO be ahnulled at the plea.
sure Of any one Of the contracting parties of