The Grand Haven news. [volume] (Grand Haven, Mich.) 1858-18??, 1861-03-06

occur in practical administration. No
foresight can anticipate, nor any document
of reasonable length contain express pro-
visions for all possible questions. Shall
fugitives from labor be surrendered by |
National or State authorities? The con-
stitution does not expressly say. Must
Congress protect slavery in the Terrific
ries! The constitution does not express
ly say. From questions Of this class
spring all our constitutional controversies,
and we divide upon majorities and minor
tiles. If the minority will not acquiesce
the majority must or the government
must cease. There is no alternative for
continuing the government.but acquies-
cence on the one side or the other. If
minority, in such a case, will secede rath-
er than acquiesce, they make precedent
which will in turn ruin and divide them,
for minority of their own will secede
from them whenever n majority refuse to
be controlled by such n minority. For
instance, why may not any portion of
new confederacy, a year or two hence, ar
bitrarily secede again, precisely rs portions
of the present Union now claim to secede
from it? All who cherish disunion SEN
timents are now being educated to the
exact temper of doing this. There is not
such perfect identity of interest among the
States to compose new Union as to pro-
duce harmony only and prevent new
secession. Plainly the central idea of Sc
cession is the essence of anarchy. A
majority held in restraint by constitution
al checks and limitations, and always
changing easily with deliberate changes
of popular opinions and sentiments, is the
only true sovereign of free people,
Whoever rejects it does Of necessity fly to
anarchy or despotism. Unanmity is i'm
possible. The rule Of the minority, as n
permanent argument, is wholly nadmiss-
able, so that, rejecting the majority prin-
ciple, anarchy or despotism in some form
is all that is left.
do not forget the position assumed
by some, that constitutional questions are
TO be decided by the Supreme Court, nor
do deny that such decisions must be
binding in any case to the parties to q
suit rs TO the object Of that suit, while
they are also entitled to n very high re-
spect and consideration in all parallel ca
ses by all other departments of the gov
eminent; and while il is obviously pos
sible that such decision may be erroneous
in any given case, still, the evil following
it, being limited to that particular case,
with the chance that it may be overruled
and never become precedent for other
cases, can better be borne than could the
evils Of different practice. At the same
time the candid citizen must confess that,
if the policy of the government upon the
vital questions affecting the whole people
is to be irrecoverably fixed by the decis-
ions of the Supreme Court the instant
( they are made, rs in ordinary litigation
between parties in personal actions, the
people will have ceased TO be their own
rulers TO that extent, and practically re-
signed the government into the hands OF
that eminent tribunal. Nor is there, in
this view, any assault upon the Court or
the Judges. 1t is duty from which
they may not shrink to decide cases prop
erly brought before them. 1t is no fault
Of theirs if others seek TO turn their de-
cisions to political purposes. One sec
ton of our country believes slavery is
: right and ought to be extended, while the
other believes it is wrong and ought not
to be extended. This is the only substan-
tial dispute.
The fugitive slave clause in the cousti-
tuition and the law for the suppression Of
the foreign slave trade are rs well cnforc-
ed, perhaps, as any law can ever be in q
community while the moral sense of the
people but imperiectly supports the law
itself. The great body of the people
abide by the dry legal allegation in both
cases, and few break over in each. This,
| think, can not be perfectly cured, and
{ it would be worse, in both cases, after the
separation of the sections than before.
The foreign slave trade now imperfectly
suppressed, would be perfectly revived
without restriction, in one section; while
fugitive slaves, now only partially surren-
dered, would not be surrendered at all
by the other.
} Physically speaking we cannot separ-
ate. We can not remove our respective
: sections from each other, nor build nm inn
passable wall between them. A husband
and wife may be divorced and 90 out Of
the presence and beyond the reach of each
other; but The different parts of our coun.
try cannot do this. They can not but
; remain face to face, and intercourse, eli
ther amicable or hostile, must continue be-
, tween them. Is il possible, then, to make
: that intercourse more advantageous OF
} more satisfactory after separation than be.
fore9 Can aliens make treaties better
] than friends can make laws9 Can trea-
, ties be more faithfully enforced between
: aliens than laws can among friendsG Sup
pose you 60 to war you can not fight al
ways, and when, after much loss on both
: sides and no gain on either, you cease
{ fighting, the identical questions as to term:
of intercourse are again upon you.
: This country, with its institutions, be
long to the people who inhabit il. When