The Kenosha telegraph and tribune. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1859-1860, 1860-03-15
REPUBLICAN NOMINATION.
Judge Dixon ora the Fugitive
Slave HayV,

slave law.
On the late application to the Supreme Court
for writ of baJeGs corpus in the case of S. NJ.
Booth, Judge Dixon delivered an opinion in
which the following statement occurs
Nor do ! wish TO be understood as saying in
my individual opinion the Fugitive Slave Law is
constitutional in all points. But that Court ~.
g. has passed upon it in my opinion it was
proper subject for its action, and l am bopnd to
regard its decision If this was an entirely new
Question--ifit had not been, as think, consti-
tutionally adjudIcated by the tribunals OF the
highest authority, should nnheshatingIy decide
the act unconstitutional. The arguments against
it by this Court, and elsewhere, are to my mind
as matters Of logic, cOActusi0e."
Here then, is judge on the bench of the Su-
preme Court, who has deliberately taken an oath
to support the constitution Of his country, and
who makes the public avowal before God and
man that he believes the Fugitive Slave Law
unconstitutional" And yet he virtually declares
he will not be governed by what he believes to
be the true Interpretation Of the constitution he
Is sworn to uphold, simply because he respects
other mems opinions God and conscience are
ignored, and the dctum Of the U. S. Supreme
Court placed high above all. The Judge on the
bench becomes a mere tool to execute the bid
ding Of another, and surrenders his own convic
lions of right and duty.
If these doctrines are to prevail as to the pow
ers and duties of State Courts, where will the
matter end? What safety have we against the
Rsurpations Of the Central Court at Washing
ton, If our State Courts bow submissively ts acts
which they adpit to be unconstitutional? What
villapy in the name of law, may not be perpetra-
ted by that tribunal of judicial tyranny, the Uui
ted States Court if the State Courts are subject
to its dictation, even in matters which require the
enforcement of uncoastitutio nal laws The
question as to the rights of the States, has now
become one Of vital Importance to the liberties
of the people, and is one which demands the ear
nest attention of every freedom loving citizen.
What now renders it one of the most prominent
issues OF the day is the pro slavery administra-
ton seeing no hope of extending slavery BY
Congressional enactments, nor by the expedients
of Popular Sovereignty, have now fallen back on
the o. S. Supreme Court, to do what legislation
has failed to do. Tho pro slavery party despair
ct Congressional aid, or Of territorial help; the
power now relied upon is The Supreme Court
Here is power beyond the reach of the people
the persons who compose that despotc tribunal
hold their Offices for life they are the bulwark
Of slavery, holding that 'the colored man has no
rights which white men are bound to respect."--
The U. s. Snrreme Court is as far removed from
the reach Of the people, as the Autocrat of Rus.
STA from the control of his subjects, What the
Constitution and law have failed to do for slave
ry, the Court at Washington has shown war
lingness to do. Hence it is not surprising that
the democratic party is now everywhere preaeh-
ing the duty Of State submission, to the man.
dates of the great pro slavery Court.
But we are told that in disputes betwo en- the
States and the United States, there must be an
umpire tribunal of last resort, and that umpire
is properly the d.. S. Supreme Court. The
Constitution has not made the U s. Court an
umpire in conflicting rights between State ard
the general government this is only mere in.
ference. Look at the Inconsistency of such a
construction two parties have difference and
failing to agree, one of the parties assumes to be
the umpire to decide the matter in dispute Now
it the U. S. is the final umpire in its own differ.
snees with the States, what rights have the
States State Sovereignty is a mere sham, il
the modern democratic idea OF the power of the
U. g. Court be correct; the government instead
OF being confederation of sovereign and indie.
pendent States, becomes consolidated empire
An umpire canDot be party in a matter Of diff
ference, and the trainers of the Constitution,
were never guilty of such an absurdity, as to
make either party judge where there is dis
pute between the two
Thomas Jefferson was fully aware Of the diff
culties likely to arise between the powers of the
general government and the rights of the soye-
reign States; he never admitted or understood
the u S. Court to be the proper arbiter in such
cases. He says" the ultimate arbter is the Deo
pie ofthe Union, assembled by their deputies in
convention, at the call of Congress, or of two
thirds of the States. Let them decide TO which
they mean to give an authority claimed by two
of their Organs."
There have been great strides towards arbitra-
ry power, in respect to the proper duties and
functions Of the U. S. Court, since the times of
Gen. Jackson; he disregarded the decision Of
that Court as to the Constitutonality of the U
s. Bank, and declared it to be the Fight Of every
man, to construe under the solemnity of an oath
the Constitution rs he understands it, and not
as it may be interpreted by another