The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-12-11

nreme Court of the United States solemnly adudged
that such power did not exist in territorial eglsa
ture Yet such has been the factleus temper OF the
times that the correctness of this decision has been
extensively impugned before the people, and the
question has given rise to angry political conflicts
throughout the country. Those who have appealed
from this Judgment of our highest constitutional
tribunal to popular assemblies, would if they could
invest territorial Legislature with power To anna
the sacred rights of property. This power Con-
gress is expressly forbidden by the Federal Consti
tuition to exercise. Every State Legislature in the
Union is forbidden by its own constitution to exer-
else it. It cannot be exercised in any State except
by the people in their highest sovereign capacity
when framing or amending their State constitution.
In like manner it only be exercised by the peo
pie of Territory represented in Convention of
Delegates for the purpose of framing constitution
preparatory TO admission as State into the Union
Then, and not until then, they invested with
power to decide the question whether slavery shall
or shall not exist within their limits. This Is an act
of sovereign authority and not of subordinate terri
torial legislation. Were it otherwise, then indeed
would the equality of the States in the Territories
be DESTROYED and the rights of property in slaves
would depend, not upon the guarantees of the Con-
stuton, but upon the shifting majories OF an ire
sponsible territorial legislature. Such doctrine,
from its intrinsic unsoundness, cannot long influence
any considerable portion of our people, much less
can it afford good reason for dissolution of the
Union.
The most palpable violations of constitutional
duty which have yet been committed consist in the
acts of different State Legislatures to defeat the ex
ecution IF the fugitive slave law. 1t ought to be
remembered, however, that for these acts, neither
Congress nor any President justly be held re-
sponsible Having been passed in violation ot the
Federal Constitution they are therefore, null and
void. All the Courts, both State and National. be-
fore whom the question has arisen have from the be-
ginning declared the fugitive slave law to be con-
stitutOnal The single exception is that of State
court in Wisconsin,; and this has not only been re-
versed by the proper appellate tribunal but has met
with such universal Reproduction, that there can be
no danger from it q precedent The validity OF
this law has been established over and over again by
the Supreme Court of the United States with per-
feet unanimty. 1t is founded upon an express pro-
vision of the Constitution, requiring that fugitive
slaves who escape from service i'll one State to
another, shall be "delvered up to their masters
Without this provision it is a we'll known historical
fact that the Constitution itself could never have
been adopted by the Convention.
In one form or other under the act of 1898 and
1850 both being substantially the same. the fugi
tive slave law has been the law of the land from the
days of Washington until the present moment. Here,
then, clear is presented, in which it will be
the duty of the next President, as it has been my
own to act with vigor i'll executing this supreme law
against the conflicting rnactments of State Legis
atures. Should he fail in the performance of this
high dutv.he will then have manifested disregard
of the Constitution and laws. tn the great injury
of the people of nearly half of the States of the
Union But are we to presume in advance that he
will thus violate his duty This would be at with
every principle of justice and of Christian charity
Let wait for the overt act. The fugitive slave
law has been carried into execution in every contest
ed case since the commencement of the present Adj
ministraton thong often it is to be regretted with
great loss and Inconvenience to the master and with
considerable expense to the Government. Let us
trust that the State Legislatures will repeal their
unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless
this shall de done without unnecessary delay, it is
impossible for any human power to save the Union.
The Southern States. standing the basis of the
CONSTITUTIONS have right to demand this act of JUS
tce from the States of the North. Should it be re-
fused; then the Constitution, to which all the States
parties, will have been wilfully violated by one
portion of them in provision essential to the dome>
tic security and happiness of the remainder. In
that event. the injured States. after having first used
all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain
dress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance
to the Government of the Union.
| have purposely confined my remarks to revOlu-
tonary resistance, because it has been claimed
within the last few years. that any State. whenever
this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may
cede from the Union, in accordance with the Con-
stitution and without any violation of the cnnstu
tOnal rights of the other members of the Confeder
8cy. That as each became parties to the Union by
the vote of its people assembled in Convention.
so any one of them may retire from the Union in a
similar manner by the vote of such convention.
In order to Justify secession a constitutional
remedy, it must be the principle that the Fed
eral Government is mere voluntary association of
States to be dissolved pleasure by any of the
contracting parties. If this be So the Coufederacy
is rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by
the first adverse of public opinion in any of
the States In this manner our 80 States may re-
solve themselves into as many petty, Earring and
hostile Republics, each one retiring from the Union
without responsibility, whenever any sudden excite
ment might impel them to such By this
process Union might be entirely broken into frag
ments in a few weeks, which cost our forefathers
many years oftoil priva:ion and blood establish
Such principle is wholly Inconsistent with the
history well as the character of the Federal Con-
stitution. After it framed with the greatest
deliberaton and care, it was submitted to conven-
uns of the people of the several States for ratifca
ton. Its provisions discussed at length in
these bodies composed of the first men of the
try. Its opponents contended that it conferred
powers upon the Federal Government dangerous to
the rights of the States whilst its advocates main
tanned that under fair construction there was
no foundation for such apprehensions. In that
mighty struggle between the first intelects of this
any other country, it never occurred to any in
dividual. either among its opponents advocates.
to assert to intimate that their efforts were
all vain labor, because the moment that any
State felt herself aggrievsd she might secede from
the Unien.
What crushing argument would this have prov
ed against those who dreaded that the rights of the
States would be endangered by the Constitution.
The truth is, that it was not until many years after
the origin of the Federal Government that such
proposition first advanced. 1t was then met
and refuted by the conclusive arguments of General
Jackson, who in his message of the 10th january,
1893. transmitting the multiplying ordinance of South
Carolina to Congress-, employs the following Ian
guage: The right of people of a single State to
a tbop Wit