Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1860-04-06

]
well because he has no rights that you are
bound to respect
So we saw, from step to step, that there
was no security for our colored population
whatever except what the State, in its almost
utter imbcciity, might give. Now, can say,
that whatever statutes have been passed, so
far as my state is concerned, believe we're |
passed with no intention to avoid and break |
down this provision orthc Constitution. They
may run counter to il they may look, upon
their face, as if they were intended to defeat
it: but our people always expect their laws
to be subject to the Constitution They ex-
pect that their own courts and the Supreme
Court of the United States will set aside as
void any law they mako that contrayenes any
provision Of the Constitution They expect
that. though they do not put in the words,
subject TO the Constitution Of the United
States laughter | may say further to
gentlemen, that if there be any such statutes
In Vermont as do contrayenc that provision
they will be as readily decided to be uncon-
stitutioual / venture TO declare, by the SUI
preme court Of that state as they would be
by the Supreme Court of the United States.
! know, Mr.. President, that our supreme
court is chosen annually by the Legislature,
The present chief Justice Of that court has
been upon that bench for twenty-three years,
always Democrat. a Democrat to begin
with, and is now and always has been, and
am afraid always will be- for he recently pub
Iished letter in favor of the whole program
me. His sentiments are well known We
p expect our laws to be decided constitutional
81 or unconstitutional by our own courts, and
especially to abide by the decisions of the
supreme Court OF tine United States. We
q have no expectation Of making any war on
them. II it should happen that any of our
laws are really unconstitutional, hardly think
that it lays the foundation Of charging mon
s with perjury and treason, and all the words
. Of vituperahon and invcctiyo that the English
z language can funsh, because we may happen
4 to be mistaken.
d Sir when the State Of Georgia passed law
that man who resided in the Indian terri
tory in that State, by license of the President
) and by consent Of the nation as a missionary
for a long time should not be allowed TO re-
, main there without license from their Govern
, or, and made it finally pcnitontiary oHcnse
10 he did. they took a citizen Of Vermont and
. imprisoned him in the penit1utiary. The SUI
preme Court Of the United States decided
that law Of theirs was unconstitutional. The
gentlemen Mr.. TooMBs, says that, after all,
the man did not got chat certified, so that the
court of Georgia did not disobcy it, True
, il is, that man. with the other gentleman in
the same position. was given very distinctly
% understand that ho could not get out of
prison in that way, but that il he would cease
bis prosecution be might bo parloucd; and
as the only hope 90 get out they did cease, and
/ they were pardonod Now, sir do mot
think that the State of Georgia should have
, imputed to it any bad design or improper
motives about that.
Mr.. President ! cannot but here say that,
+ to my mind. the fact of a State passing uu-
constitutional laws furnishes no foundation
for what gentlemen claim. deny that any
State in this Union can lay the foundation for
( dissolution Of the Union by passing uncon-
p stitu'ional laws. The doctrine Of the Sena-
tor from Georgia is, that if State or several
, States, pass laws contraycning the Constitu-
ton of the United States, and which, if you
{ please, are injurious to others; in that case
the compact is broken, and the other States
i are at liberty to treat it as vacated Whenever
they please. deny that doctrine. deny,
in the first place, that the States, as several
h States, entered into this compact. That how
ever, is repeated so often that, upon the
Il
When a State acts it acts in its organized ca
pacity by its organs, by its legislature, or by
, It's Executive. There never was one of the
States of this nation that acted in that way
in the adoption of the present Constitution.
, The people of the United States, meeting i'm
, the conventions in their several States, adopt
{ ed the United States Constitution. The Suites
never acted on it as States. !, would be "a
paradox that they should have done so. How
could the Legislature OF North Carolina, for
/ instance invested it was, at that time by
the people with power to levy and collect
duties upon imports how could the State,
o. in its organized capacity, through that organ
, delegate that power TO another body; 1t
, could not be done Ii never was done. It
( rover was attempted 90 be done. The people
of the United States had to meet in their
several States in their original condition, as
z people in convention. for these reasons first,
1t was more convenient; next, if the people
of North Carolina had invested their Legisla-
, ture with the power to levy and collect duties,
the people of North Carolina alone would
have the power to invest that in another body /;
+ to wit Congress. If you called the whole
people Of the United States, it would be a
. different set Of people to take that power
t away from the one who gave it, No, sir, it
S is not true that this is in that sense a coned-
eracy 1t is a national Government. ! say
= it is a national Government, operating by its
4 own act on individuals, and enforcing its own
G laws by its own executive power The old
4 Confederation was failure. This is ma
It toual Government.
If these things be true, can it be possible
o that any State in this Union can dissolve it,
n or, if you please, lay foundation for others
j, to dissolve it, by passing unconstitutional
d laws 1t is utterly destructive Of the whole
$ principle Of this Government. There is no
n foundation for it at ALL Then | deny that,
y because laws may have been passed. mistak-
2 emily if You please, that were unconstitutional,
against the United States Constitution, that
If is any foundation for a dissolution Of this
% Government But there is another very
y strange thing in all these assertions; and that
IS is, that upon a certain contingency, the cleo
G ton Of a Republican President, the Union is
o, to be dissolved on account Of those laws
p Pray, what relationship is there between
IS them 1t is pretty much like one man tell
is in{ another, III you had not caned me to-day
IS for my insolence, would have paid you that
debt a month ago. laughter
le The next point made upon us is, that it will