Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-06-23

protects against violation right acquired under the
constitution and laws of a State.
As tA& back as in 1913 had occasion to publish
my opinion on what has been called "squatter SOW
ereignty." | then said:
at would be easy enough to show that mere
temporary government, owing its existence ana al
its powers to act of Congress- and that OF DOUBT
full constitutonaty organized because there are not
| people enough to sustain q government Tor theIn-
selves, cannot assume to fix and alter the iuhu"-
| mental institutions of society, not only tor 'hem-
| selves hut for the much larger number VINO are eA-
pected and encouraged by the general 10
come after them Excluding whom and what tney
please from vast extent of common territory, ana
| admitting only whom and what they may choose.
| And again in A speech which delivered in the
House of Representatives, in December, 1856,
| said:
THAT such body IA territorial legislature] pos
sesses power to annul rights OF property acquired
and held under the common law and constitutions OF
fifteen States of the Union, appears to me 2ropo-
sition too monstrons to be entertained for moment
in nation not prepared to revert to barbarism and
| anarchy.
For nv part, [ do not think it 1.-THE establishment
of what shall be- or what shall not he, property
rightful subject Of legislation and hence do not
think the Kansas and Nebraska act or the Consti-
tuition, conferS any such power on the legislature
and am satisfied the Supreme Court will so decide,
if the question should ever arise
Will the Democratic party, especially will the
southern portion Of it. fall into the snare laid for 1t
by the Fillmore of the South and the black Re
publicans of the North? Shall we quarrel over the
bone of contention cast into midst by the hon
orable gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Humphrey
MARSHALL Whatever others may do, will not. |
do not believe the Kansas Nebraska bill empowers
the territorial legislature to exclude the STAKEHOLDER
with his property; but am willing for that ques-
ton to take the course Of other constitutional ques
tons and be decided by the courts, as the bill in
tended it should be decided"
| The opinions then expressed remain unchanged,
| and the subsequent decision Of the Supreme Court
in the bred Scott has verified my prediction as
to what its decision would be. If there is doubt
as to what was decided in that case the court is the
proper tribunal interpret its own decisions; and,
as a politician, | want better platform to stand
upon on judicial question than deciSion Of the
| Supreme Court of the United States BY contem-
| poraneous pledges, and by every consideration Of
| sound principle, the party to which am attached
stands bound to respect differences of opinion-and
| to tolerate them, too-in all those who in good
fifth will stand to and abide by the decisions Of the
| Supreme Court this question of squatter SOW
| ereignty.
| This question was discussed when the Kansas and
| Nebraska bill was pending in 1854. Some said the
people of Territory had right to legiSate against
slavery before their admission into the Union; 9TH
e-s said that under the Constitution they could not
possess or exercise any such right All agreed that
was judicial question: to be decided by the Su
preme Court and all agreed to abide by the decis
ion of the court when it should be made And. in
order that the courts might he open for the decision
Of the question, the ninth section Of the bill prov
ded that appeals might he taken from the territorial
courts to the Supreme Court of the United States.
in all involving title to slaves without
gard to the value of the matter property, or title in
controversy" showing clearly that the bin cuntem
plated the settlement of this question by the courts
and not by Congress. Otherwise resident in
Territory would not have been allowed an appeal to
the Supreme Court in a case in which such appeal
is not allowed to the citizen of State.
In 1856 the question existed in precisely the same
dimensions and having the same bearings as at
present We did not make it test then; least Of
all, did we say that we could not without a Sacr-
flee of principle, act with those who differed from us
in opinion to how the Court would probably de-
| eide the question? IF we had done So Mr. Fremont
would now be President instead Of Mr.. Buchanan.
What reason can be assigned for making it test
now, which was not equally cogent in 1856? None
whatever
To the second proposition also give my assent
To protect persons and property within the limits
of its jurisdiction is the sole p"rpoSe for which
legislature is instituted, and when it fails to dis
| charge that duty, it is recreant to its trust and
should meet the condemnation of every honest citi-
zen. Amongst people virtuous enough for self
government such derection from duty as fail
ure to pass laws for the protection of the citizen in
the enjoyment of property declared to be his by the
highest courts of the land will meet the condemna
ton it deserves and hurl the faithess legislators
from the places they unworthily fill. The passage
of laws hostile to property would make good men
pray for deSpotism to save them from ruthless an
archy.
But, unfortunately, we know that the Abolition.
list scrupes at no outrage, and glories in that of
which other men would he ashamed. He is restrain
4 49, - II. II
Gus to sgnaliZe his zeal by outrage and fraud Sup
pose they shall attempt to perpetratc the outrage
here alluded TO- they have actually done in Kan
sas and Nebraska, and as have doubt they will
do wherever they have the majority-what remedy
have We?
This brings me to the third and main proposition.
II they attempt to exclude us. to deprive us of
our property or to harass It's by actual legislation
the remedy is clear, and will be efficient so long as
the federal Judiciary is kept pure. Any aggreved
citizen can contest the cOnstitutionality of the law
and when the court has decided in his favor as the
bred Scott decision assures it will decide the
President is bound to its decree obeyed and for
that purpose can use the whole military and naval
resources of the country If the executive arm is
not sufficiently strong for the purpose under exist
ing laws. it is the duty of Congress to pass such adj
dltlonal laws as may be necessary to enable the
President to discharge efficiently this his first and
highest duty under the Constitution. This is as
much protection as any Of us have or can have
against bad laws under constitutional government,
and more than we could have under any other: and
if it is not perfect it is because human institutions
cannot entirely eradicate human vices, nor bride
the selfish and malevoent passions of individuals.
The remedy through the courts would be effec
tive to prevent territorial legislature from assa
ing the slave owner by hostile legislation But
what slave owner would leave the fertile lands and
the friendly laws and congenia society of our South
ern States to settle in the midst of Abolitionsts
where he knew that nothing less than chains would
secure his slave from running away or being stolen
and where constantly harassed with law suits ant
criminal prosecutions, he could only be maintained
in the possession of his property by the army ant
navy of the United States
In legal sense his RIGHTS and re,nad;ae ,n;obt L.