Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1860-10-10
DEMOCRATIC INCONSISTENCY.

The leaders of the Democratic party have
heretofore made their implicit obedience to
the decisions and opinions of the Supreme
Court of the United States, great merit.
One of their leading journals recently declar-
ed this to be the proper criterion for judging
of the character of party. Here is its Ian
guage:
ssThe only criterion of excellence, in Judg-
ing of the character of political organlzatioh'
is its conformity to the spirit Of the Constltu-
tion, as manifested in the practical operation
of government. To aid the judgment IN this
matter, we have the decisions of the Supreme
Court, the only authoritative exposition OF me
Constitution 4lt Ue need 10 know, therefore,
in determining this question political orthodoxy,
is to ,chat ertent This that party comedies fh,
and most SealousLy rnaintains the decisions Of
this august tribunal On constitutional questions
This sounds beautifully, but how does the
practice Of the party conform to it 2
At the Charleston Convention the following
preamble and resolution were submitted as
part of the platform which was adopted by the
majority of that body: sr1zg Las saasi
/ sslnasmuch as differences of opinion exist
in the Democratic party as to the nature and
| extent of the powers of Territorial Legisla-
ture, and as to the powers and duties OF Con-
gress. under the Constitution of the United
| States, over the institution of slavery within
the Territories: iiefs . 79s-''
ssResolced, That the Democratic party 1cill
abide by the decisions Of the Supreme Court Of
the United STATES on the question Of constitution
al iar.'' ae".eE s@ 7sk ff'
This portion of the report was rejected, but
twenty-one members voting for it, and two
hundred and thirty EIGHT against it. alEl
A Southern Democratic paper gives the rea-
sons of its editor, who was member of the
| Conventions, for voting against the resolution
| ssTHE SUPREME COURT AND THE DEMOCRACY.
"A resolution reported by the minority of the
| Committee on Resolutions at the Charleston
Convention pledged the Democratic party to
abide by, and faithfully carry out, such deter
limitations of these (Territorial questions) as
have been or may be made by the Supreme
Court of the United States. q. e
| s.To this resolution could not assent.
| Ne could not then, and 1ce cannot nOir, assent
10 erecting the Supreme Court, or any other Courl
or body Of men, into the dictators Of Democratic
principles. IL ,rouid be absurd in us TO do so
| No merely judicial tribunal has any right OF
claim TO supremacy orer the consciences of Dem
ocrats, upon political questions. And even as
| a matter of policy it would be still more alb
| surd. The Supreme Court, so far as the Judg-
es on its Bench are concerned, is trembling
on the verge of the grave. In all human pro-
| liability it must be almost wholly reorganized
| within the next four years. Its decisions may
be wholly opposed to that made or intimated
in the Dred Scott case. Would we have the
Democratic party, as a matter of party faith.
pledged to them, too {? Would we have Demo-
cratic principle and policy dependent on the
reorganization of the Supreme Court We
would not, and hence we voted against thi:
resolution in Convention" H
If Democracy is to be judged ont of its owl
mouth what are we to think OF it? We are
frequently told that Democratic principles are
sseternal and unchangeabe;" but it must be ac
knowedged that it is hard for persons not o
that party to understand what they are, wher
it is evident that the oracles of Democracy are
continually contradicting themselves.
The extracts quoted above we got from {
very able article in the Natioaal IntelHgencer
which shows the inconsistencies of sham De
mocracy In strong light.