Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1860-04-06

further to gentlemen, that if there be an7
such statutes IN Vermont as do contravans
that provision, they will be as readily deci.
led to be unconstitutional, venture to d..
clare, by the Supreme 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
but they make no distinction amongst par
ties. The present chief Justice of that c5ur,
has been upon that bench for twentv-thraa
wears. always Democrat a Democrat %
begin with. and is now and always has been
and am afraid always will be, for he recent
Iy published a letter in favor Of the whole
programme His sentiments are well known.
We expect our laws to be decided constitu
tional or unconstitutional by our own courts.
and especially to abide by the decisions Of the
Supreme Court of the United States. vs.
have no expectation of making any war M
them. IF it should happ'n that any Of 1ur
laws are rally unconstitutional, | hardly
think it laws the foundation of charging men
with perjury and treason, and all the words
of vituperation and invectIve that the Eng
Irsh language can furnish. because We NAV
happen to be mistaken.
SIR. when the State Of Georgia passed
law. that a man who resided IN the Indian
territory in t1at State, by license Of the
President. and by consent Of the nation. as
a missionary for a long time, should not be
allowed to remain there without license
from their Governor, and made II hnalYa
no, iLantiarv offense if he did, they took
citizen of Vermont and imprisoned him IN
the penitentiary The Supreme Court of
the limited States denied that law Of theirs
was unconstitutional. The gentleman Or
Toombs) saws that, after all. the man did not
Get that certified, 50 that the court Of Gs1r-
ola did not disobey it. True it is, that man
with the other gentleman in the same Ds-
ti,n was given very distinctly to under.a1i
that he could not get out Of prison in ths,
wav. hut that if he would cease his prosecu-
ton he might be pardoned and as the 00l7
hone 10 yet out they did cease, and they were
nardored. Now sir, do not think that the
State of Georgia should have imputed it ,o
any bad design or improper motives about
that.
Mr.. President, cannot but here say, that.
TO nv mind, the fact of State passing IN
constitutional laws furnishes no foundation
for what gentlemen claim. deny that aEv
State in this Union can lay the f0undatiou
for dissolution Of the Union bv passing
unconstitutional laws. The doctrine Of the
| Senator from Georgia is, that II a STATE, or
several States, pass laws cOntravenlng the
Constitution of the United States, and whl,h-
if YOU please, are injurious to others IN that
case the compact IS broken, and the other
States are at liberty TO treat 1t as vacated
whenever thew please. | deny that
doctrine deny, in the first place. that the
States. as several Stntes, entered into this
comnact. That, however, r. repeated 20
often that, upon the whole, do not know
hut it is believed When a State acts, IS acts
| in its organized capacity, by It's organs, by
/ its legislature, OF by its Executive. There
/ never was one of the States Of this nation
/ that acted in that way in the adoption otthe
/ present Constitution. The people OF the
/ United States, meeting in the Conventions in
/ their several States, 4 lopted the Unlted
| States Constitution. The States never acted
! on it as States. 1t would be a paradox thai
thev should have done so. How could the
LEGISLATURE of North Carolina, for instance.
invested as il was, at that time, by the peo-
! ole with the power to levy and collect duties
| upon imports how could the State, IN IL
organized capacity, through that organ dele
gaze that power to another body? 1t could
not be done. It never was done. IL never
was attempted to be done. The people Of
the United States had TO meet IN their ssye-
raj States in their original condition, as pen
pie in convention, for these reasons first 70
was more convenient next, if the people OF
North Carolina had invested their Legisis
ture with the power to levy and collect du-
ties, the people Of North Carolina alone
would have the power TO invest that in an0-h-
er body to with Congress. If you called
the whole people of the United States, 1t
would be different set Of people to take that
power away from the one who gave IT, No.
sir. it is not true that this IS N that sense
Confederacy. 1t is National Government
| saw it is a National Government, operating
BY It's own act on individuals, and enforcing
its own laws by its own executive power
The old Confederation was a failure This
is a National Government.
If these things be true, can 1t De possible
that anv State in this Union can dissolve i.
or, if YOU please, lay a foundation for Others
to dissolve it, by passing uncOnstitr;lonal
laws? 1t is utterly destructive of the whole
prin iple of this Government. There i n
foundation for it at all Then deny that.
because laws may have been passed. mistak-
emily, if you please, that were unconsutuuon-
al, against the United States Constitution.
that IS any foundation for dissolution OF
this Government. But there Is another very
strange thing in all these assertions and
that Is, that upon a certain contingency, re
election of Republican President, the mon
Is to be dissolved on account OF those laws.
PRAY, what relationship is there between
them ? 1t is pretty much like one man
telling another, IF you bad not caned ne
to-day for my insolence, | would have pan
you that debt a month ago" Laughter
The next point made upon US Is, that II
will not do TO 20 on with the Republican
party in possession of the Government, BE-
cause gentlemen say we are going 10 break
down the Supreme Court. Now. in relation
to breaking down the Supreme Court, I 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 L
is binding upon the parties to the suit, an1
upon all who claim under them, who are
privy to it, There it ends. The judgmsn'
of court Of competent jurisdiction Is to De
executed TO that extent. and there
stops. The United States, | take 1t. were
never a party TO the bred Scott decLs
on, nor a privy to 1t in any legal sense
Then it has no binding force as Judgmsn'
on the United States. Should 1t have any
force as precedent or authority Il was .
political decision as TO the power Of the 'I''-
eminent TO forbid Slavery in the Territories
That is a question relating to the exercise ol
political power of coordinate branch OF '9s
Government If that is not political d.
not know what is Well. now, how has t11'
always been viewed?
Some years since, the Supreme Court 'gI5
delib rately decided that the Bans OF ,, .n9
United states was constitutional. Inc -.
ocratlc platform, | believe. even N 'l3 -.
version. following its predecessors. con11.-'
an express resolution that it is unconsu's
Il mai. We see. then, how it is underst'll
by that party at any rate, that a decision 7,
the Supreme Court on point of that knl
is good for nothing at all, unworthy OF an'
respect, and that their own party decl ions p
their platform are of higher authority NOR
validity, and more binding. do not cno'-
aRont that It matter between