Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1860-04-07

were pafd0ned. NOW, sir, L DO not 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 State passing unconstitu-
tiona laws, furnishes no foundation for what gen.
tlemen claim. / deny that any State in this Union
lay the foundation for dissolution of the Union
by passing unconstitutional laws, The doctrine of
the Senator from Georgia u.s. that if n State or
several States, pass laws cUniuvening the Constitu-
ton of the United Strtcs, and which, If you please
are injurious to others; in that case the compact is
broken, and the other States are at liberty to treat
it Us vacated whenever they please. l deny that
doctrine. | deny in the first place. that the States
as several States, entered into this compact That
however, is repeated often that, upon the whole
/ do not know but it is believed. When n State
acts it acts in its organized capacity, by its organs
by its legislature or by its Executive. There never
was OF the States Of this nation that acted in
that way in the adoption of the present Constitu-
ton. The people Of the United States, meeting in
the conventions in their several States, adopted the
United States Constitution. The States never ac-
ted on it as States. 1t would be paradox that
they should have done How could the Legisla-
ture of North Carolina, for instance invested as it
was, Mt that time, by the people with the power to
levy and collect duties upon imports; how could
the State, in its organized capacity, through that
organ delegate that power to another body 1t
could not be done. 1t never done 1t never
was attempted to he done. The people of the
their original condition, people in convention, for
these reasons first, it was more convcnicnt next,
if the people Of North Carolina had invested their
Legislature with the power to levy and collect du-
ties 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 he n different set of people
to take that power away from the one who gave it.
No, sir, it is not true that this is in that sense a
ConfedeIacy. 1t is a national Government. / say
it is a national Government, operating by its own
act on individuals, and enforcing its own laws by
its own executive power. The old Confederation
was failure. This is n national Government.
If these things he true, can it be possible that
any State in this Union can dissolve it, or, if You
please lazy foundation for others to dissolve it, by
passing unconstitutional laws 1t is utterly de-
structive of the whole principle of this Governments
There is foundation for it ut all. Then |
deny that, because laws may have been passed,
mistakenly if you please, that were demonstrations
al, against the United States Const tuition that is
any foundation for dissolution of this Govern
ment But there is another very strange thing in
all these assertions and that is, that upon certain
contingency, the election of Republican Presi.
dent the Union is to he dissolved on account of
those laws. Pray, what relationship is there be-
tween them? 1t is pretty much like one man tell
ing another, "1f you had not cancd me today for
my insolence, l would have paid you that debt a
month ago" (Laughtcr.)
do to go on with the Republican party in possess
sion of the Government, because gentlemen say we
arc going to break down the Supreme Court There
is another principle of our party mentioned in this
connection, and that is. that we are going to eN-
cludc the South from the Territories. On this last
point have already said all that | wish to say.
This is exactly what has been done from the begin
ming. 1t is the very thing the Government was made
for. Now, in relation to breaking down the Su-
preme Court, l have but few words to say.
have always understood, as a lawyer that the
judgment of court was binding upon the parties
and privies--no more. 1t is binding upon the par
ties to the suit and upon all who claim under them,
who are privy to it. There it ends The Judgment
of n court of competent jurisdiction is to be eX-
ecutcd to that extent, and there it stops. The
United States take it, were never party to the
bred Scott decision nor privy to it in any legal
sense. Then it has no binding force, as judg-
ment on the United States. Should it have any
force as precedent or authority? 1t was pol
itica decision as TO the power of the Government
to forbid slavery in the Territories. That is a
question relating to the exercise of the POLITICAL
power of a coordinate branch of the Government
If that is not political l do not know what is
Well, now, how has that always been viewed
Some years since, the Supreme Court very de-
Gbcrately decided that the Bank of the United
States was Constitutional. The Democratic plat
form, believe, even in the last version following
its predecessors. contains an express resolution
that it is unconstitutional. We sec then. how it il
understood, by that party at any rate, that deci
sion of the Supreme Court point of that kint
is good for nothing at all unworthy of any respect
and that their own party decisions in their platform
are of higher authority, more validity, and NOR
binding. / do not choose to quarrel about that -
1t is n matter between them and the court, | taxi
it, however, as authority, and it seems 10 me that
ut any rate, gentlemen who stand upon that plat
form ought not 10 insist much Oh the decisions O
the court.
But, Mr. President, the bred Scott decision, a
precedent-and certainly that is the only eiIec
on us in point of law-I take it as neither infaa
BILE nor inscrutable hardly think that any gen
tleman will stand here and say that he claims 70
the decision of the Supreme Court, precedcn
and authority, that we should bow down to it a
we would to the inscrutable dispensation of Divin
Providence or that we should even say blasphc
mousy of it, "the Lord has given, the Lord ha
taken away; blessed be the name Of the Lord. -
This will not be claimed, apprehend. Then it
to be examined; and its worth as n precedent dc
pehds on the soundncss Of the arguments tbs
sustain it and the principles on which it stands
II it has any weight, it is that; and by the way,
the arguments good to sustain the principle
they would be just as good without the decision
tie Supreme Court as with it.
Now, Mr.. President, wish to examine this d.
cision of the Supreme Court little. They cxper
o great amount Of time in undertaking to sho
that the power of the Government over the teri
tory beyond the MISSISSIPPI, territory when WI
not owned at the adoption Of the Constitution
does not arise and exist under the territorial clau
of the constitutional mean the clause giving Coz
gress power to make all needful rules and regul
tons. care very little about that. | think it
totally unfounded in its reasons on that point b
care very little about it for another reason. III
court say that there is, after all, power in tn
Government to obtain territory by conquest
treaty. They further say, that there must nece
sary be, incident to that power and to the pow
to admit States, authority, when the Governme
has acquired Territory, to frame Goyelnme
for it, as to pass it through condition Of pup
age, and prepare it for admission as States. ca
very little whether the power came from tn
clause or not; they say there is that power a
way; and they say that, in framing the laws
that purpose, it is in the discretion Of Congress
make provision: it is not for the court to say wi
form of government they shall give it. They s
further, that, the territory being part of t
United States, "the citizens enter it under autho
ty of the Constitution, with their respective rigf
marked out and defned.'' But they say "t
power is in the discretion of Congress-" and tn
Of course, they are to frame the form of Cover
ment in such way as they believe will best q
vance the interests of the whole people,
They then spend some time discussing wheth