Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-12-11

violating the rights of property secured Dy the
constitution, will surely be declared void by the
judiciary whenever it shall be presented in le-
gal form.
Only three days after my inauguration the Su-
preme Court of the United States solemnly ad-
judged that this power did not exist in terri
torial legislature. Yet such has been the fac
tlous temper of the times that the correctness OF
this decision has been extensively impugned be-
fore the people, and the question has given rise
to agry political conflicts throughout the country
Those who have appealed from this judgment Of
our highest Constitutional tribunal to popular
assemblies would, if they could, invest a terrific
rial legislature with power to annul the sacred
rights of property.
| This power Congress is expressly forbidden
| by the federal constitution to exercise. Every
State Legislature in the Union is forbidden by
its own constitution to exercise it. 1t cannot be
exercised in any State except by the people in
their highest sovereign capacity when framing
OF amending their State constitution. In like
manner, it can only be exercised by the people
of a territory represented in convention of del
egates for the purpose of framing a constitution
preparatory to admission as a State into the
Union.
Then, and not until then, are they invested
with power to decide the question whether
slavery shall or shall not exist within their linn
its. This is an act OF sovereign authority, and
not of subordinate territorial legislation. We're
it otherwise, then indeed would the equality of
the States in the territories be destroyed, and
the rights of property in slaves would depend,
not upon the guarantees OF the Constitution, but
upon the shifting majorities of an irresponsible
territorial legislature. Such doctrine, from its
intrinsic unsoundness, cannot long influence any
considerable portion of our people, much less can
lit afford good reason for dissolution of the
Union.
i The most palpable violations of constitutional
duty which have yet been committed, consists in
the acts of different State Legislatures to defeat
the execution of the fugitive slave law. 1t ought
to be remembered, however, that for these acts,
neither Congress nor any President can justly be
held responsible. Having been passed in VIOLA
ton of the federal constitution, they are there
fore null and void. All the courts, both State
and national, before whom the question has
arisen, have from the beginning declared the
fugitive slave law to be constitutional. The
single exception is that of q State court in Wis
, consin; and this has not only been reversed by
the proper appellate tribunal, but has met with
such universal reprobatlon that there can be no
danger from it as precedent.
The validity of this law has been established
over and over again by the Supreme Court ol
the United States with perfect unanimity. 1t is
founded upon an express provision Of the Con
stitution, requiring that fugitive slaves who es
cape from service in one State to another shall
be delivered up" to their masters. Without
this provision it is well known historical fact
that the Constitution itself could never have
hoou odoptod hv tho Gopvopfiop Tn fcrr
: or other under the acts of 1898 and 1850, both
being substantially the same, the fugitive slave
law has been the law of the land from the days
of Washington until the present moment. Here
then, clear case is presented, in which it viii
be the duty of the next President, as it has beer
been my own, to act with vigor in executing this
supreme law against the conflicting enactments
of State Legislatures.
Should he fail in the performance 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-half of the States o
the Union. But are we to presume in advance
that he will thus violate his duty2 This would
be at war with every principle of justice and OF
Christian charity. Let Us wait for the overt act.
The fugitive slave law has been carried into ex-
ecution in every contested case since the com
, mencement of the present administration; though
often it is to be regretted with great loss and
inconvenience to the master, and with consider
able expense to the government. Let us trust
that the State legislatures will repeal their un-
: constitutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless
this shall be done without unnecessary delay, it
is impossible for any human power to save the
. Union.
E The Southern States, standing on the basis OF
the Constitution, have right to demand this
act of justice from the States of the North
I Should it be refused, then the constitution, to
which all the States are parties, will have been
wlfully violated by one portion of them IN q
provision essential to the domestic security and
. happiness of the remainder. In that event, the
injured States, after having first used all peace
. full ard constitutional means to obtain redress,
would be justified in revolutionary resistance to
the government of the Union.
have purposey confined my remarks to rev.
olntionary resistance, because it has been claimed
within the last few years that any State when
ever this shall be its 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 contederacy. That as each became parties
to the Union by the vote of its own people as
sembled in convention, so any one of them may
retire from the Union in similar manner by
the vote of such convention.
In order to justify secession as a constitutional
lremedy 1t must be on the principle that the fed
eral government is mere voluntary association
of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one
of the contracting parties. If this be So the con-
tederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and
dissolved by the first adverse waves OF public
opinion in any of the States.
In this manner our thirty y-three States may re
solve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and
hostile republics, each one retiring from the
Union, without responsibility, whenever any
sudden excitement might impel them to such a
course. By this process Union might be en-
tirely broken into fragments in few weeks,
which cost our forefathers many years of toll,
privation and blood to establish.
Such principle is wholly inconsistent with
the history well the character of the federal
Constitution. After it was framed, with the
greatest deliberation and care, it was submitted
to conventions of the people of the States tor
ratification. Its provisions were discussed at
length in these bodies, composed of the first men
of the country.
| Its opponents contended that it conferred pow
ers upon the Federal Government dangerous to
the rights of the States, whilst its advocates
maintained that under fair construction of the
instrument there was no foundation for such ap-
prehensions. la that mighty struggle between
the first intellects of this any other country,
j lit never occurred to any individual, either
among its opponents or advocates, to assert, or
ever to intimate, that their efforts were all vain
la hor tbat fol+