Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1860-12-26
coNaRtssIoNAL PROCEEDINGS.

| of the laws OF the North which were in con.
| flct with the Fugitive Slave law. He procee-
ded to argue that such laws were unconstitu-
tional and nullifying. The Government should
execute the laws in every State, and their en-
forcement, could not be considered an inya-
sion. He went on to argue that State could
not go out of the Union by its own volition,
and said that such was the opinion of the foun-
ders OF the Government. Mr.. johnson here
| read extracts from the writings of Mr.. Madison
to show that such was the opinion of Mr.. Mad
ison. He quoted also from letters of Mr. JET
ferson on the same subject, to show that it was
not necessary to give the Government power
to enforce the laws in a State, as they had it
| by theilaw Of nations. Mr.. johnson claim
| ed that the power to enforce the laws was ex-
! pressly delegated by the States to the General
| Government. If any State sets itself up in
| opposition to this power, it is aggression and
| rebellion. If the Government fails to perform
| its duty in this respect, it is at an end. Mr..
johnson here quoted further from the opinion
OF Judge Marshall to strengthen his position.
He also called attention to the views of jack
| son and Webster on this subject. The Gov
| ernment was called into existence by States,
| and could not be broken up by single State.
The Constitution was intended to be perpetual.
When Congress (1793), passed law taxing
distilleries, part of the people of Pennsylya-
MIA resisted There was no difference between
| that and resistance by the whole people of a
State. The talk now is about the coercion of
a State only, but he fancied there was no great
distinction to be made. Congress enforced
the laws, but there was no talk about the CO.
ercIon of State. Mr.. johnson here read from
the proclamation of Washington to show that
he considered the laws should be enforced and
that the Union was inseparable. Gen. Wash
lngson sent l5 900 men to put down rebellion.
That is the way Washington enforced the laws.
Suppose that the whole people of the State of
Pennsylvania had rebelled, would it not have
been just as constitutional to enforce the laws
against the whole as part of them In 1882
there was another rebellion against the laws of
the United States. Mr.. johnson paid a high
eulaginm to the character of Jackson who was
then President. He said that Jackson held
the same views in regard to the enforcement
OF the laws that Washington did, and put re-
belllon down. The Government then went on.
| Now how is it +? The duties now are the same
the consequences belong to God. He in
tended to discharge his duty, whatever the
| consequences may be. Have we not the DOW
er to enforce the laws in the State of South
| Carolina as well as in the State of Vermont or
any other State And, notwithstanding they
| may resolve and declare themselves absolved
from all allegiance to the Union, yet, it does
| not save them from the compact If South
Carolina drives ont the Federal Courts from
the State, then the Federal Government has
right to re-establish the Courts. II she ex-
cludes the mails, the Federal Government has
right and the authority to carry the mails
If she resists the collection of the revenue in
the port of Charleston, or any other ports, then
the Government has right to enter and en-
force the law. If she undertakes to take pos
session of the property of the Government, the
Government has right to take all means to
retain that property. And if they make any
effort to dispossess the Government. or to re-
sist the execution of the Judicial system, then
Tar mt a her in fho
it is the duty of the Government to see the Ju-
dietary faithfully executed. Yes, Sir, faith
fully executed. In December, 1905, South
Carolina made deed of cession of the land
on which these forts stand-a full and free ces-
sion-with certain conditions. The Govern
ment complied with The conditions, and has
had possession of these forts till this day.
And now has S. Carolina any right to attempt
to drive the Government from that property
Ii she secedes and makes any attempt OF this
kind, does she not come within the meaning
of the Constitution, where it speaks of levying
war? And in levying war, she does what the
Constitution declares to be treason. We may
as well talk of things as they are, for If any,
thing can be treason, within the scope ofsthe
Constitution, is not levying war upon the Gov
ernment treason Is not attempting to take
the property of the Government and expel the
Government soldiers therefrom treason Is
not attempting to resist the collection of the
driving the Federal Courts from her borders
treason? What is it ask, in the name of
the Constitution, what is it 2 1t is treason,
and nothing but treason, If a State, by its
own volition, can go ont of the Union, what is
theGovernment worth But under the phrase
ssSccession," it is declared that South Caro-
lina,if she secedes, lis no longer amembcr of the
Union, and, therefore. the laws and Constitu-
tion of the U. S. are imperative, and she is not
guilty OF any violation. This is matter of o.
pinion. l have tried to show what this doctrine
of Secession is. Madison, who was called the
father of the Constitution, denies this doctrine.
w Washington, who is called the father of his
country, denies this doctrine. Jefferson, Web
ster, and Clay, all deny the doctrine, and yet
we are told to-day that State can go out of
this great Confederacy without any regard to
the woe and misery that may be inflicted upon
the remaining States. Ifths doctrine be true,
then State can Secede and withdraw. Sup
pose, for instance, that South Carolina has
seeded. and is now out of the Confederacy.
What attitude does she place herself in
Thore might be circumstances in which the
States entering into and remaining under the
compact might tolerated. wish to be UNDER
stood-might tolerate the secession of State,
she taking the consequences of the act. But
suppose, by the secession Of a State, all the
remaining States are involved in the disastrous
consequences, then the doctrine comes up,
can State, without regard to the Constitution, |
secede, and so endanger the safety and pros
perity of the remaining States 1t comes up,
then, whether the States are in condition, or
whether they will tolerate the secession of
South Carolina. That is matter to be de-
termined by circumstances and by the emer-
gency when 1t comes. And, again, suppose |
South Carolina is outside of the Confederacy |
and she forms an alliance with foreign pow
er-with France, England, Russia-with |
view to ulterior motives, let me ask this coun-
try if they dare neglect their duty--dare they
letthem do it, under, and In compliance with |