Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1860-10-29
Democratic seIfCri.ieIsms.


1t is curious, and at the same time instruc-
tive. to observe the naiUefe with which our
Democratic friends contrive to lay the most
serious charges at their own doors while APP
parently inveighing with virtuous indigna-
ton against the heresies of their political OPP
popents. For instance, we find in one of the
campaign documents of the Breckenridge
Executive Committee the following arga-
ment of Mr.. Bell
''He has undertaken to adDise and counsel the
A6olitionists of the North that solemn decis-
ion of the Supreme Court, determining
constitutional question and asserting the
rights of the South to an equal enjoyment OF
the Territory, should not be regarded by them
as permanent settlement OF the question"
The inquisitive reader who seeks TO know
the grOdnd of this serious" inculpation is
pointed to the following declaration made by
Mr.. Bell in the Senate of the United States
on the 18th of March. 1858, while the pro-
priety Of admitting Kansas into the Union
under the Lecompton constitution was sub
jcct of debate in that body. Replying par
ticularly to some remarks dropped by Mr..
Seward derogatory to the Supreme Court
and the bred Scott decision, Mr.. Bell held
the following language:
Il shall not enter into any discussion of
these doctrines. will say, however, that if
the opinions announced by that Court are
founded on sound principles, and formed
within the pale of judicial authority under
the Constitution, they aDiH stand, and OUGHT
To STAND; if otherwise, like hundreds of de-
cisiOns in the judicial history of this country
and Great Britain, they will yield to further
and closer investigation tcuh0aa any disTgan-
izdg ntzposiiOH o. Lte Legislative pOsoer. If, as
many gentlemen here say, they were extra
judicial opinions, O6aer dictd, voluntary an
nOuncement of sentiments and opinions, they
can do no injury in any quarter; because,
whenever the same questions shall again
arise, they will be open to argument and re-
adjudication. Whatever may be the decision
of that Court or the power of Congress to
interfere with the question of slavery in the
Territories, and however clear and we'll
founded in principle and authority its decis-
cisiOn may be. | have supposed that, mas
much as it is a question of constitutional
construction or Interpretation, and relates to
the jurisdiction and power of separate de-
partment of the Governmental department
always more or less under the influence of
political cOnsiderations-the question would
not be regarded as permanently settled; and
that whenever In future, as heretofore Con-
gress shall be called upon to legslate con-
corning Territory. the question will again
become subject of discussion, and such de-
cIslon as the majority shall think proper to
declare. Congress was never sWayed by the
opinion of the Supreme Court on the ques-
nor will it be controlled by any of its opin-
ions in questions involving political consid-
erations. If l anu right in these views and
when 1t is clear that no injury can be done
to either the North or the South by the opin-
ions recently pronounced by the Supreme
Court upon this question, achy should it be made
Pretet for continuing this dangerous Slavery ogi-
tQti0n ?'
This deduction of Mr. Bell, which assumes
n 1uaU f1oh ~, l.
fore submitted to be governed by the Su-
preme Court on questions of constitutional
construction or Interpretation, it would not
be likely to do so on the constitutional cues
tiOns involved, or supposed to be involved
in the bred Scott decision-this simple de-
ductiOn made in conformity with the politi-
cal history of the country, as determined by
the most approved Democratic authority and
precedents, is imputed as a crime to the man
who draws 1t! On the same principle, we
suppose, the historian is to be held response.
BILE for the evil deeds which he recites, and
the judge is to be hanged for accurately sta
ting the offence of g criminal at the bar. If
it was so objectionable in Mr. Bell to an
nCunce such a doctrine as historical what
shall be said in eXcul patton of the Democrat
ic leaders who compelled him to render such
a verdict in simple justice to truth and to
Democratic orthodoxy, as formerly under |
history will be admitted by all who are ia
miliar with Democratic Rulings on this point |
A few examples will suffice in illustration. |
To this effect hear President Jackson in his |
veto message on the United States Bank:
IF the opinion of the Supreme Court COW
cred the whole ground of this act, it ought |
not to control the coordinate authorities of |
this Government. The Congress, the Execu-
tive, and the Court must each for itself be |
rrnff hrr IFS nNyT 1i,,ir So H.
ton. Each public officer who takes an oath |
to support the Constitution, swears that be |
will support 1t as he understands it, and not |
as it is understood by Others 1t is as much |
the duty of the House of Representatives, of |
the Senate, and of the President to decide |
upon the cOnstitutionality of any bill or res |
olutiOn which may be presented to them for |
passage or approval, as it is of the Supreme |
Judges when it may be brought before them |
for judicial decision. The opinion of the |
Judges has no more authority over Congress |
than the opinion of Congress over the |
Judges and on that point the President is |
independent of both. The authority of the |
Supreme Court must not, therefore, be per- |
mitted to control the Congress or the Execu-
tive when acting in their legislative capaci- |
ties, but to have only such influence as the
force of their reasoning may deserve"
Other Democratic authorities of the |
cite in abundance One more. however,
shall suffice for the present. 1t is that of the
Hon. K. NJ. T. Hunter between whom and
Mr.. Bell. in the Senate of the United States,
on the 9th of May, 1858, there occurred the
following passage:
MIR. HUNTER. L read the decision of Judge
Nelson that was explicit on the point. |
What does the Senator say to that?
Mr.. BELL Is that conclusive?
'.Mr. HUNTER | think So
"Mr. BELL. Is that irreversible? Does it
settle the law? If it was a construction of
the Constitution it would not settle it in the
opinion Of The honorable Senator.
Mr. HUNTER. 1t settles the Ialc. do not
think they 1.-The Supreme Court can settle the |
Constitution by decision, but they can settle
the LaU.
The true intent and meaning of Ia,r the |
Supreme Court can settle, but not according |
to Mr.. Hunter, the true intent and meaning |
of the Constitution. Mr.. Hunter, therefore.
does not hold that Congress is bound by the
decision OF the Supreme Court in the bred |
Scott case, nor In any other case involving |
questions OF constitutional construction or in |
depreciation. Yet he is a most approved |
Southern Democratic statesman Mr. Bell. it |
will be noted, did not express any concur |
renee of opinion with President Jackson and |
Mr. Hunter All that he said was to assume |
that Congress wO1ld continue to act hereaf- |
ter, as 1t had done heretofore, and as Presi- |
dent jackson said it ought to do, viz: act for |
itself, be guided by its own opinion of the |
Constitution, and not be controlled by the |