The Kenosha telegraph and tribune. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1859-1860, 1860-03-22
The Rock ON which the Pro
Slavery Party now Anchor.

The Rock ON which the Pro
slavery Party now Anchor.
The pro-slavery party having lost all hopes OF
spreading slavery by Congressional, State, or
Territorial legislation, now fall back on the o.
s. Supreme Court Here is the rock on which
they propose to anchor, and defend the claim Of
slavery at !every hazard. No matter how the
people may understand the provisions of the Con-
stitution--no matter how they may be construed
by the courts of the several States, it is of no
consequence the pro-slavery democracy tell us
there is a tribunal that has power above all,
which may interpret Constitutions and laws as it
thinks proper, and no other tribunal nor the peo-
pie, have any right to question, or even criticise
its functions. Since the organization of our
American Union suntil quite a recent period, it
has never been held by any party, that the Con-
sttution carries slavery into the Territories but
what the Constitution has failed to do, the Su-
prone court has now taken upon itself to do
Hence the pro-savery party delighted with
the Supreme Court; it can take this business
out of the hands Of the people-out of the 1uris-
dietion Of the State Conference.-The the Con.
stitution, and plant the black flag of negro sla-
very wherever it chooses. And too, the peopIe
are told, all the acts ofthis central power are a
fnaIty; the sovereignty of the people must bow
in submission. Even the right offree discussion,
must not enter the sacred precincts of the great
fnality; the pro-slave cry command is, be silent.
bow down and worship. ''The King can do no
~ hot h.
be acquiesced in as right, however revolving to
the judgment and common sense Of mankind
This is no oyerdrawn statement of the attitude
now presented to the country by the pro-slaverv
Democracy. They seek to place men on the
bench OF our State Supreme iCourt, who avow
their willingness to surrender their own convic.
tons of right and duty, in respect to the REQUIRE
ments Of the Constitution, although under obl-
cation OF an oath to obey them Judge Dixon.
whom the Democracy now propose to elect to
the post of Chief Justice, is the representative
of that class Of modern polittians, who preach
the duty Of ignoring conscience, and accepting
the opinions of the u S. Court as final, however
repugnant they may appear to the plain provis-
ions of the Constitution. We quoted the posi-
ton Of Judge Dixon last week on this matter, as
expressed by himself officially at Madison-some
three weeks ago; we give it again, so that it may
be clearly seen that we state doctrines of the
modern Democracy truthfully Judge Dixon
says:
''Nor do I wish to be understood as saving that
in my individual opinion, the fugitive slave law
is constitutional in all its points. But that court
u. 81 has passed uponit; inmy opinion, was
proper subject for its action and | am bound
to regard its decision. If this was an entirely
new question-ifit had not been as think con-
sttutionally adjudicated by the tribunals of high
est authority should uRheSitatinglg decide the
act unconstitutional. The arguments against it
made il this court and elsewhere ARE to my mind
as matters of logic, conclusive"
Here then. we have the matter fairly stated by
a candidate for the highest judicial station in the
State laws although acknowledged to be un-
constitutional must nevertheless be obeyed. The
sovereignty Of State has no power to protect
its citizens againstl the unconstitutional en-
croachments Of another power If this doctrine
is oprevail where will it end? What safety will
State Constitutions and laws afford the people,
if they may be made void by enactments which
the Judges on the bench of our State Court adj
nit are unconstitutional Are the liberties of
the people safe, can they be preserved if the doc
trine be admitted, that unconstitutional laws are
as binding on the people as those which are cons
stitutiona7
The new dogma of the pro slavery Democracy,
renders Constitutions comparatively worthless
If Judge Dixon acknowledges it to be his duty
81 40
may with the same proprety to dozen or any
number whatever. The ridiculous pecta
Gle which this nation would present to the world,
were there multiplication of such cases, is APP.
parent; nation protesting to be controlled by
sacred regard to its Constitution, yet governed
by laws which the Judges of the State Courts,
like Judge Dixon, believe to be unconstitutional
A more base subserviency-a more complete
surrendery of the sovereignty of the people, was
never demanded in any of the European despot-
isms, than is now preached by the modern De.
mocracy.
The danger to be apprehended from consoli-
dated government and especially from the usur-
patton of undue power by the U. S. Court, was
matter of earnest discussion in the early history
Of the Republic. The old Republican party in
the time Of Jefferson, was formed to resist the
encroachments of centralized power 1t would
transcend our limits to give even summary of
the opinions maintained by early statesmen, in
respect to the powers of the u s. Court. Thorn
as Jefferson, as late as in 1920, declared that:
1.-THE Judiciary of the United States is the sub.
tie corps of sappers and miners constantly work,
ing under ground to undermine the foundations
Of our confederated fabric. They are constituting
our Constitution from coordination of a gene
raj and special government to general and SUI
preme one alone. This will lay all things at
their feet"
MaFH SarVipn