Daily national Democrat. [volume] (Marysville, Calif.) 1858-1861, 1860-02-11
A SecessiOnist Among Us.

A SeceSSlOnISt Among Use
The Express of yesterday gives an instance
Of the most glaring Inconsistency that we
have ever witnessed. In one column it takes
us to task for which it audaciously chooses to
denomnate desire to tickle" the Republi-
can party. This very silly accusation it bases
upon the fact that we berated, the other
day, a portion of the Southern Democracy
for their continued threats to dissolve the
Union in case of the election of Republican
President The Republican party never hav-
ing yet expressed its determination to inter-
fere with the institution Of slavery in the
limits of those States in which it exists, we
did not consider that any portion of the
South had a right to threaten a Withdrawal
from the Union upon the mere contingency
of the success of Republican candidate for
the Presidency. Having thus accused us of
injustice to the South, in the same issue of the
Express and in the very next column, the
editor of that paper proceeds to confirm the
perfect truth of all that we had said, by an
open declaration in favor Of this very spirit
which we complained of as being manifested
by the South and plain avowal for himself
ofthe naked doctrine of secession. After hav
ing said that the Federal Constitution is
compact between the States" he remarks
that if that compact is observed and carried
out in good faith" there will he no necessity
for dissolution of the Union But if it
should he disregarded the Southern States
are no longer bound by it, and have right
to ~ithdraw from the confederacy.
The Federal Constitution makes the Su-
preme Court Of the United States the great
and final arbiter between the different States
of the Union in all controversies that may
arise, as well as the authoritative Judge fthe
constitutionality of such acts of Congress as
may conflict with the rights of any of the
States But this Secessionist of the Express
ignores the existence of this great tribunal in
the settlement of such questions and makes
each separate and individual State the Judge
of the constituticnality of acts of the National
Legislature. or of the Federal Executive. He
would uproot the whole frame work of our
government. as established by the founders of
the Republic. They contemplated no power
in any State of the Union to set itself above
the Supreme tribunal of the land But he
and his brother seeessionists are far wiser
than they
In the secession article alluded to, he says
eve believe, that should Republican Pres-
dent be elected. there will be great danger of
a dissolution, but zoe do not think it would oc.
cur until he committed some overt act against
the rights of the people of the South"
He does not think it would occur until
some overt act was committed, but he sup
poses (the inference is) that it might occur
even before such overt act. Now, as to the
overt dct-who, pray, is to be the judge of
this overt act? Why. in the estimation of
Secessionists, any State may set up that au-
thority for itself. We suppose that if a Re-
publican Congress should refuse, upon the
demand OF any portion of the South however
small, to repeal the laws against the slave
trade, it would be considered by these seces-
sionists an overt.act violation of the Federal
compact, for these individuals are queer in
terpreters of the Constitution. 1t cannot be
long before there must be three vacant places
upon the Supreme bench of the Federal Ju>
dietary, the great age and infrmity of the
present venerable occupants rendering it i'm
possible for them much longer to survive. A
Republican President would fill those places
with Republican Judges. Would this be an
overt act of the character which would in
duce the editor of the Express to hoist at his
mast head the black banner of Disunion
What overt act does he expect any party in
power under this Government to commit
against the rights Of sovereign States? Does
he expect those States to be invaded by physi.
cal and brute force Or does he expect any
departure from the known channels of Legis.
latlve and Judicial action2 Very well. If
Congress legislate within the bounds of the
Constitution and the Supreme Court sdjudi-
cate that those bounds have not been tran
scended, where is the pigmy traitor who wond
dare to raise his hand against the integrity of
that legislation 2
What, then, is to be the overt act 2 Verify
we weuld like TO hear a further explanation
of this doctrine of secession at the hands Of
the Express Let us have this newly risen
political monstrosily among us, so completely
unveiled by that journal, thoroughly kno II
and understood by the people in all its
hideous and unblushing defOrnity.