The daily true Democrat., 1861-03-09


 nnistration. Noforesight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all feasible questions.
 Shall fugitves from labor be surrendered by national, or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
 From questions of this class spring all our con sttutional controversies and we divide upon them into maorties. If the minority will not acquesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative for continuing the government but acquiescng on one side or the other If minority in such case will secede, rather than acquiesce, they make precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of new con tederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely portions of the present Union claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interest among the States to compose new Union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession? Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limi- tations and always changing easi 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 to despotsm; unanimity is impossible. The rule of minority as a permanent arrangement is wholly inadmissible, so that rejecting the majority princi ] pie, anarchy despotsm ill 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 dcci- sons must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit. While they also entitled to very hi 5h respect and con sderaton in all parallel cases, by all other depart ments of the government, and whileit is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case still the evil 6ffect following it be- ing limited to that particular case, with the chances that it may be ovenued, and never become a pre- cedent 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 vital ques-
 ons, affecting the whole people, is to be iTeyoca bly fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the | instant that they made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal Nor is there, in this view any assault upon the court or theudge. It is duty from which they may not shrink, 10 de eide cases properly brought before them; and is fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisen to political purposes.
 
 very is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be tended. This is the only substantial dispute. Tine fugitive slave clause of the constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be, in a community where the moral sense Of the people iiRPerlectly supports the law rgli. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal ob
 gati0n in both cases, and few break ovsr on each l think that this cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before.
 The foreign slave trade now imperfecflY sIip- pressed would be ultimately revived without re- strction in section, while fugitive slaves BOW only partially surrendered, wou not be surrender ed at all by the other Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respec- tive sections from each other, nor build an impas- sable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other but the different parts of the country cannot do this; they cannot bat remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them.
 Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after sepa ration than beiorel Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can be among friends
 Suppose yol go to war, you cannot fight always; and when after, much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse upon you This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government they can exer else their constitutional rights of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or over throw it.
 | cannot be ignorant of the fact that many wor- thy and patriotic citizens are desrous of having the national Consultation amended. While make no recommendation of amendment, l fully recognize the rightfal authority of the people the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes pre- scribed in the instrument itself; and should, under existing circumstances, favor, rather than oppose, fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.
 l will venture to aid, that to me, the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amend ments to originate with the people, themselves, instead of only permitting them to take, or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. l understand proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment. however, have not seen, has passed Congress to the effect, that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, nclu ding that of persons held to service. To avoid I