Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1860-09-25

lNoNhtoufeS, VI tuc SSudtc, duu VI tue
President to decide upon the constitution
alIty of any bill or resolution, which may
be presented to them for passage or ap-
proval, as il is of the Supreme Judges
when it may be brought before them for
Judicial decision. The authority of the
Supreme Court must not. therefore, be
periniued to control the Congress or .he
Executive"
The following were the views OF
Thomas Jefferson, that old Democrat who
made the Declaration of Independence,
and was the father of the Supreme ia
dietary:
You seem to consider the judges as
the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
quesilons-a very dangerous doctrine IN
deed, and one which would place us un-
der the despo,ism of an olIgarchy. Our
Judges are as honest as other men, and
no, more SO. They have, with olher the
same passions for party, for power, and
the privilege of :heir corps"
The judiciary of the United States is
the subtle corps of sapper. and miners
constantly working under ground o un-
iermine the foundations of our confeder-
ated fabric. They are constituting the
Constitution from the co-ordinati on of a
general and special government 10 a
general and supreme one alone"
Thus You see that Abraham Lincoln
and the Republican par,y-pledged as
they are TO free sOit. free labor, and free
homes for free understanding upon the
Old Democratic doctrine of the perfect
independence of Executive, Legislative
and judicial departments of the Govern
ment, could consistently and effectively
carry out your views, while Mr.. Douglas
and Johnson, by their pledges as express
ed IN their platform, and their REAL
wishes and desires, as expressed in the
record herein presented, would do all in
their power to spread what you consider
the evils of slavery over territory tha,
nigh, ts devoted 10 FREE HOMES for
FREE WHITE MEN under Lincoln
aud a Republican administration.
But we hear you say. II am Demo
cra,, and the Republican party are A bo-
htlonlsts, and | can't so that Doctrine.
sly good friend let me ask have not your
fears and your prejndices rather got the
better of your judgmentl Has not this
constant cry of "Abolitlonist,' "nigger
equality" "woolly heads" Sc, So I'M
pressed your mind that you have been
made 10 believe it, without thinking for
a moment of It's entire falsitya Why
should party whose cardinal principle
IS that The Territories should be kept free
kept for FREE HOMES for FREE
WHITE MEN-be called Abolition
isiSt
Why should party, who are striving
ny all the means IN their power, 10 keep
the sons and daughters of tree laboring
men from the degrading contact of slave
labor, be called 1.-The nigger equality par
ty!" L, only needs n moments reflection
TO show the utter absurdity and falsty Of
such charges.
Read what Mr.. Lincoln says, a, TO his
principles and those OF the Republican
party, III his speech al Quincy:
1--WE have IN this nation thus elemen,
of domestic slavery. II is a matter o.
absolute certainty that IL is a disturbing
element. II is the opinion of all the
great men who have expressed an opin-
ION upon II, that II is a dangerous ele-
ment. We keep up q controversy in regard
10 IT. That controversy necessarily springs
from difference OF opinion and If we can
learn exactly--cau reduce 10 the lowest
elements what that difference of opin-
ION s, we perhaps shall be better pre-
pared for discussing the different systems
of policy thar we would propose IN regard
to that disturbing element | suggest
mat the difference of opinion, reduced to
It's lowest terms, is no-other than the diff
ference between the N n who think sla-
very a wrong nd those who do not think
1t wrong-we think IL is Il moral, a social
and a political wrong We think is IS a
wrong not confnIng itself merely to the
persons or the States where 1t exists, but
that II is wrong IN lis tendency, 10 say
the least, that extends itself 20 the exls-
tence of the whole nation Because we
think It wrong, we propose a course OF
policy that shall deal with II as a wrong
We deal with i, as with other wrong,
in so far as we can prevent lis growing
any larger, and so deal with ii that IN
the run OF time there may be some prom
ise of an end 10 II. We have a due re-
gard TO the actual presence Of 1t amongst
US and the difficulties of getting rid of il
in satisfactory way, and ali the cons;-
tutional obligations thrown about 1t.
suppose that in reference both 10 it's ac-
:ual existence in the nation. ard 10 our
Constitutional obligations we have no right
al all TO disturb IL IN the State where it
exists, and profess that we have no more
inclination 10 disturb II than we have the
right 10 do 1t. We 60 further than that;
we don't propose TO disturb 1t where. in
one instance, we Thick the Constitution
would permit US We think the Constitution
would permit us 10 disturb It IN the Dis
triet of Columbia. SILL we DO not pro-
pose TO do that unless 1t should be in terms
which | don't suppose the nation IS very
likely soon 10 agree to-the terms Of ma
king ,he emancipation gradually and con-
pensating the unwilling owners. Where
we suppose we have the constitutional
right, We restrain ourselves in reference
10 the actual existence of the institution
aud the difficulties thrown about II. We
also oppose II as an evil 50 far as Il seeks
TO spread nsef We insIs; on the policy
that shall restrict II to It's present limits.
We don't suppose that IN doing this we
violate anything due TO the actual pres
ence OF the institution, or anything due
10 the constitutional guarantees thrown
around il.
I'VE oppose the Dred Scott decision
in certain way, upon which | ought,
perhaps 10 address you a few words. We
do nj Dronosa that when Dred Sro-, has