Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1860-03-02
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27, 1866
SENATE.

Mr.. Seward presented petitions praying tor
| pensions to soldiers of the war of 1872.
Mr.. Collamer introduced a resolution that
the Committee on POst-offces and POst-roads
inquire into the e%xpediency of having let tiers
which may remain in any post-othce unde-
livered for 80 days, returned 70 their writers.
Mr.. Collamer advocated the resolution as
necessary TO relieve the dead letter office OF
the immense amount of matter thrown upon
1t. The resolution was adopted.
Mr.. Wilson gave notice of a bill to reduce
the rates now paid for the public printing %
per cent.
Mr.. Browns resolution was taken up.
Mr.. Toombs addressed the Senate. lie
said it had been asserted that he had no right
to call 10 question the acts of sovereign States.
As the representative of a sovereign State he
thought he had the right, and that this was
| the peculiarly appropriate place to call in
question the acts of the cOnfederated States.
If redress could not be obtained here, the
| States would be thrown upon their own re-
sources. He had not arraigned the dOmes-
tie institutions or Internal affairs of any State
he had only arraigned them for inidelity
10 the Constitution, which they were bound
DN every cOUSlueTdllOu VI lditu ~ CdlIl OuO-
He had charged certain States with being I'M
faithful to their compact, and OF having
made a supreme law of the land OF no effect.
None of them denied these charges except the
Senator from Iowa, and he would show he
was wrong. Tho excuse given was that the
fugitive slave law was no law. There must
be an arbiter somewhere in the case of this
conflict. II the cannon is the only arbIter,
the sooner we know it the better. The Sem
ator from Wisconsin had defended the action
Of his State. Now, Wisconsin had not only
set aside a decree of the L. s.. Court, but had
nullifed u provision of the Constitution it
self. The provision of heConstitution in re-
gard to the rendition of fngitives from labor
was plain beyond cavil. There was no anal
ogy between the action OF the Supreme Court
of Wisconsin and that of Georgia quoted by
the Senator from Wisconsin. He had ar
raigned that State not on the ground that
she had any right to decide upon the consti-
tutionality of a United States law, but that
she had violated the plainest provision OF the
Constitution.
Mr.. Toombs supported his argument by
cOpious citations from legal authorities. In
the course of his remarks he said bad men in
all ages had cried Lord Lord " The con-
stitutionality of the act of 1898 had been af-
frmed by every State Court before which it
had come, and the act of 1859 did not differ
therefrom. He reviewed at length, and ex-
planned the acts of the Georgia Courts. The
Courts of WincOnsin had asserted the suprem-
acy of the State Courts over the Federal
Courts. The decisions referred to by the
Senator from Wisconsin simply asserted that
the Federal Courts had not supremacy over
State Courts. Nine Judges of the Supreme
Court said this was a new doctrine In Amer
lean jurisprudence.
The action of the Wisconsin Courts stood
in its naked deformity without parallel. In
reply to Mr.. Hale, he said the ordinance of
1877 passed before this government was
formed, and, therefore, rested upon no con-
stitutional authority. The opinions of the
early fathers were misrepresenteG.
Further consideration of the subject was
postponed until Wednesday, a week hence.