Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-07-19
For the Intelligcncer]
SECTIONAL sTRIFE--No. 1G.
THE DRED SCOTT DRc1s1oS

! @NNftV'
| mons OF others. the subscriber reioiccd in
the passage of the compromise measures of
! 1880. yet see no reason for disturbing
thoSc great measures of pacification. cx
| cePt one, and that calls on us for extreme
clrcumspection. We have an ndversarv
VINO cannot be trusted. The Southern
politicians, who have resolved to African
iZe the North American continent. observe
no iAlth towards us, the citizens of the
North, except PUNIC FAITH. They concur
IN the passage of national statutes. they
meet IN national Conventions and prepare
platforms, and both statutes and platforms
contrary to all fuith, to all loyalty, are
made the means of evcr-recurring frauds
and deccptions on a too confding pcoplc
Inc parliamentary party would gladly
nave made terms with Charles the First
O"t Tor one "a all 7,9HgieHent RI ri 4B0sstIyfoKw
the Supreme Court, the PRoPAGAXDIsTs
are in possession of a machine, similar in
politics, to that one in mechanics of which
Bolton and Watts were the patentees, and
which they described as machine for the
creation of unlimited power. Such men
as JEFF. Davis and his confederatcs, give US
very Ineligible hints of future coustitu-
tion0l changes, and whilst abhoring the
propositions of those turbulent and un-
quiet spirits, fully concur with thcm in
the expectation that their desires will be
grAtitied just soon as q case, real or
pretended, can be made mp for the Su-
premc Court. In fact, good and wise men
begin to despair, believing that we have no
longer II written Constitution, but only n
| kind of Fenician Council of ten or rather
| seven, who retire into secret conclAve and
thence deliver edicts; jnst rs the Priestcss.
es at Delphos, retired into the recesses of
their temple and thence delivered oracles.
! Moreover, the Northern wing of the Prop
| agandists at Baltimore, has, in the spirit of
"passiYc obedience and nOn-rcSistNncc,"
pledged every branch of the Federal Gov
ernment to obey the dicta of these
men with promptncss and fidelity, that is,
without hesitation or inquiry. 1t there
fore bchooves us to consider what we may
expect from the action of this newly crcc-
ted constitutional machinery If our
! Grand Lama has at all times past, been
infallible, we may indulge fiattcring hopes
of him in future. This essay is intended
to be mere compilation of authorities
The subject IS surely important enough to
warrant me in expecting and calling for
the patience of the reader. If we, the
people, will not think, if we will not re-
fleet, if we will not labor to inform our
selves on political subjects, the present
| scramble between professional politicians
ship of State will be dashed ashore against
the breakers or settle down in deep sea-
| We must inform ourselves on political sub
jectS; the piping times of peace and fra
ternity are ut an end. In compliance with
my promise in the l4th number, l shall
begin with Il long extract from M'Cooks
reports, page 80 and the subsequent pages.
to show in what spirit Court should np-
prOach a Constitutional question. After
i Al, i l.
the bred Scott decision in the 10Th How
ard, and see whether the Supreme Court
performed any part of the duties of calm
ness, modesty and impartality SO essential
to the adequate discharge of their judicial
functions. "But while the right and the
duty of interference in proper case, are
thus undcniAbly clear, the principles by
which 81 Court should be guided in such
an inQniry, are equally clear, both up
on princip Pile and authority. 1t is never
to be forgotten that the PRESUMPTION is AL
WAYS IN Favor CT THE VALIDITY OF THE
LAW; and it is only when manifest assWmp-
tion OF authority and clear incompatibility
between the Constitution and the law ap-
pear that the judicial power can refuse to
execute it. Such interference can never
be permitted in doubtful case. And this
results from the very nature of the ques-
tion involved in the inquiry. The Legis-
lature is of necessity in the first instance,
to be the judge of its own constitutional
powers. Its members net under oath to
support the Constitution and in every way
under responsibilities as great as judicial
officers.
Their manifest duty is never TO exercise
Il power of doubtful cOnstitutionality.-
Doubt, in their case, as i'll that of the
Courts, should be conclusive against all
affirmative action. This being their duty
we arc bound in all cases to presume, they
have regarded it, and that they are clearly
convinced of their power to pass Il law
before they put it in the statute book. If
a court in such case were to annul the
law, while entertaining doubts upon the
subject, it would present the absurdity of
one department of the Government over
turning in doubt, what another had estab-
lished in settled conviction; and make the
dubious constructions of the judiciary
outweigh the fixed conclusions of the
General Assembly. The udjudged cases
speak uniform language upon this sub
ject. The question was early brought to
the attention of the Supreme Court of the
United States. In Hylton VS.. the United
States: Dallas r. Ill, Mr.. Justice Chase
declares 'if the Court have such power, l
am free to declare that will never excr-
else it but in q very clear case" and Mr..
Justice Washington, in Cooper VS.. Telfair,
4 Dallas, r. IA, says, "the presumption
must always be in favor of the validity of
the laws, if the contrary is not clearly
demonstrated"
When it became necessary afterwards
in Marbury Us. Madison, to determine the
question of power, the Court did not hesi-
tate, as we have seen, to exercise it and