The Kenosha telegraph and tribune. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1859-1860, 1860-03-29

We would remind Republicans that full
vote on Tuesday next for the Office of Chief JUS
tice is extremely desirable, and we trust proper
effort will be made to bring the voters to the polls
The question is one of much Importance to the
people the issue is whether the State shall give
up its sovereignty and bow submisively to usurp-
ed power, or whether it shall retain its indepen-
dence and constitutional rights. We say con-
stitutiOHaL rights, for it must not be forgotten
that the Democracy of Wisconsin, are now hold
ing forth the doctrine of obedience to unconstitu.
tiOnaI law. This is no unfair representation of
the case, since the candidate whom the Democ.
racy avow their intention of supporting for the
post Of Chief Justice, in late opinion on the
bench Of the Supreme Court, declared it duty
to obey law which he believes unconstitutional.
We have quoted his exact language in former
numbers Of our paper, and need not repeat it
again.
Here then is the difference Republicans &C
knowledge the binding force of all constitutional
enactments, State or National, but hold uncon-
stitutional laws of no force and void. The De
mocrscy of Wisconsin hold that whatever laws
are pronounced constitutional by the U. S. Cour
the people of the State are bound to obey, ne
matter how palpably absurd, and unauthorized
they may appear to our State Courts. BY thu
modern democratic construction it will be seer
that the State has right to protect its citizens
against any abuse of power the U. S. Court may
see fit to exercise. Let the doctrine of the Wis
consin Democracy prevail, and State Sovereign,
Is sham, and Liberty an empty name.
But it is asked with an air of seeming triumph
is not the U, S. Supreme Court the tribunal o
last resort and fnality, in all cases arising unde
the laws Of the. United States? Manifestly il
all cases acknowledged to arise under the Con
stitution Of the United States, that Court has
jurisdiction; nevertheless, State has right tc
judge for itself, what cases are not under the Con
stitution of the United States and what powers
are not delegate to the General Government
This is the Jeffersonian doctrine, and this, too
has been the doctrine of the Democratic party
as avowed in its National Conventions for TWEEN
ty years past, as we have shown by quotation
elsewhere in this paper.
The Republican party maintain no new doc
trines as to the Rights of the States they are
the same as held by the Rep ublieans of old; in
the days of Jefferson, when the Federal party
sought to bring about consolidated form Of gov.
eminent using the same kind of argument, and
ridiculing State Rights just as the modern Dem
ocrats of Wisconsin now do. The ground now
occupied by the Republican party, and their can.
didate for Chief Justice is, that the State Courts
are not Inferior to the Federal Courts in an y
ease that their judgments are final and not sub
ject to review in the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States. That the U. S. Court has no power
to make an unconstitutional act of Congress
binding on the States that 1t is the duty of
each, to keep with the constitutional limit as,
signed it; that if the U, S. Court transends the
powers delegated to it, its decisions are void.
The question before the people is a plain one;
shall the government be administered and the
rights of the States maintained, in the manner
intended by the trainers of the Constitution ? Or
shall the people of all the States, bow down to
the mandates of the Supreme Court for the ben
eft of slavery, because Congress can no longer
help slavery, and the Supreme Court is the only
power left, which the defenders of slavery think
can help it?