Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-08-21


heartily subscribes tol See if it be not so.
The platform says "it becomes our duty, by
legislation, whenever such legislation is neces-
sary, to maintain this provision of the constr
tuition" &c. To this-to every word of it
Mr.. Thayer says he heartily subscribes. Now
he believes, either that such legislation may
become necessary, or that it never can become
necessary. If he believes the former, then it
is precisely the legislation which he pro-
nounces a humbug. If he believes the latter,
then in his view it is a humbug, to which,
nevertheless, he heartily subscribes In eth
er case, he heartily subscribes to what he calls
a humbug But in either case, what must We
think of his honesty How can it be honest
to subscribe to humbug How can it be
honest to call that humbug which is not
The trouble is, Mr.. Thayer seeks to stand
upon two antagonistic platforms at once He
would fain get toothold upon the Chicago
platform, while maintaining his position on the
Humbug platform. But we submit, that
statesman OF even Mr. Thayer's colossal stride
can t do it. He must abandon the one or the
other-he must abide by the one to the exclu-
sion of the other. But inasmuch as he reiter-
ates in his last speech, with even passionate
vehemence, that he sticks to the Humbug
platform, we must insist that he is not on the
Chicago platform. Congressional intervention
is in the Chicago platform.
And now for the horns. If the court is
against US it is useless to egslate, if the court
is for us it is needless. Such are the horns of
Mr.. Thayer's dilemma. Our short answer is
this The dilemma conceals fallacy, the
exposure of which destroys the dilemma. A
fallacy, we say which might be pardoned in
a sophomore when showing his skill at chop
ping logic among his mates, but which it is
objectionable in a member of congress to i'm.
pose upon his constituents of the pillow, the
LOOM and the anvil, as an excuse for not obey
ing their behest. The falacy lies in Mr..
Thayer's illegitimate use of the terms use
less" and needless" He employs them as
universal terms in point OF fact, they are
in this connection. only partial. Or, to speak
less technically, Mr. Thayer would have us
conclude that because congressional interven-
ton can be logically proved to be useless or
needless for some purposes, therefore it is use
less Or needless for all purposes. A very bald
faced non sequit,r, that For, take the first
horn 1t is useless for congress to prohibit
slavery in the territories because the court is
against us. But why, how, useless Be
cause, says Mr.. Thayer, the court will pro-
nounce the prohibitory act to be void, when
ever case arises under it for the courts aG-
| publication. Admit that. But what if case
never does arise under it for the courts adj
| publication Is it useless then? What if the
passage of the prohibitory act perentS the
arising of such a case Is it useless then p!
The truth is, and Mr.. Thayer knows it, the
republicans demand prohibitory act for this
very end, viz to deter slave masters from car
| rying their slaves into the territories Does
| any one doubt the utility of such an act for
such a purpose? Let congress now, in the
| face Of the bred Scott decision, in the face of
the known pro-slavery opinions and sympa-
thies of the supreme court pass such an act
let it be signed by the president land Abra
ham Lincoln would joyfuly sign it y and let
it be recorded as the deliberate and solemn
expression OF the will of the law.making pow
er of this people, and can any one doubt its
utility to promote the end in view ? Can any
one doubt whether such an act would operate
to discourage the emigration of slave labor and
to encourage the emigration of free labor into
the territories is there a Worcester county
farmer who wonld not prefer to cmigrate into
territory so protected, rather than into one
doubted else why the hue and cry against
the repeal of the Missouri compromise? We
maintain, then, the usefulness of such an act
in promoting free labor emigration, and thus
in ultimately securing free state, although,
in the meanwhile, slave master might slip in
with his slave, and the act, as interpreted by
the court, might prove "useless" to secure
freedom to that particular slave.
But this is not all. We maintain the use
fulness of such an act as a means of converting
the court itself. Judges, even supreme judg
es, are but men and they know on which side
their bread is buttered as well as other men.
They know that they were put into their high
place of power, not to thwart the will of the
people, but to enforce it. They know what
will become of them if they dare to thwart it.
They will not dare. They know that the one
great, potential, irresistible force in this coun-
try, and under this government, is the Will Of
the People. And when that will is duly, de-
liberately expressed on the statute book, they
will conform to it. We appeal to facts. So
long as the Missouri compromise was in force,
there was no bred Scott decision. When that
great policy was reversed, and it seemed to be
the viii of the people, expressed by every
branch of the lawmaking power, that it should
be so, then the supreme court followed suit.
1t will follow suit again, it will "tread its steps
backward" whenever that great policy shall
be re inaugurated. When, therefore, Mr.
Thayer says that congressional Intervention
is useless because the court is against us, we
reply, it is useful to make the court for us. II
is useful as a cause to remove the very obsta
Gle which Mr.. Thayer throws in our way.
the "useless" horn of Mr., Thayers dilemma
and that being done, the dilemma itself ceases
to exist. S.
NEwPoRr.-This famous watering place i.
now thronged with visitors from every section
of the country. The hotels are all tull, ant
the city presents one grand SCENE of ,,aitv ane