The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1861-03-06

and SO nearly impractieable withsl, that deem
u better to ierego for some time the use ofsuch
offices The mails unless repelled, will con.
tinue TO be furnished in al parts Of the Union,
50 isr as possible. The people everywhere shall
have that sense ofperiecl security which is most
favorable 10 cain thought and reflection.
The course here indicated will be followed,
unless current events and experience shall show
modification or change 10 be proper, and in
every case and exigency my discretion will be
exercised according to circumstances actually
existing, and with view and hope of a peaceful
solution of the national troubles, the restora-
ion OF the fraternal sympathies and affections
l hat there are persons in one ct on or another
who seek to destroy the Union at all events
and would be glad OF any pretext to do it,
will neither affirm nor deny. But if there be
such, | need address no words to them. To
those, however, who really love the Union,
may not speak? Before entering upon SO grave
4 matter as the deslruct on OF our National ia.
brio, with oil its benefits, lis memories and
4 hopes, would il not be wise to ascertain previ-
ously why we do so? VIII you hazard SO des,
perate step while there is any possibility that
any portion ofihe il S t al you fly from have no
real existence? Will you, while The certain ills
you TO are greater than all the real ones you fly
ful a mistake? 4 u profess to be content in the
Union if all constitutional rights can be main.
tanned Is it true, then, that any right, plainly
written in the Constitution, has been denied?-
think not. Happily the human mind is so
constituted that no party can reach TO the aud
aeity of doing this. Think, ifyou can, OF sin
gle instance in which plainly written proyis
ion OF the Constitution has ever been denied
IT, by the mere force OF numbers, majority
Shall deprive minority ofany clearly written
constitutional right, it might, in moral point
of view, Justify revoluton-it certainly would
if such right were a vital one; but such is not
our case.
All the vital rights ofminorites and of ndi
viduals are so plainly assured to them by affr.
nations and negotiations guarantees and proh-
bitlons in the Constitution, that controversies
never arise concerning them. But no organic
law can be framed with provision specifically
applicable to every question which may occur
in political administration. No foresight can
anticipate, nor any document Of reasonable
length contain express provisions for all possi-
BILE questions, Shall fusitives from labor be
surrendered by Cational or State authority?
The Constitution does not expressly say. May
Congress prohibit slavery in the Territores?-
The Constitution does not expressly say
Must Congress prohibit slavery in the Terrific
rles! The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions Of this class spring all our
Constitutional controversies, and we divide np-
on them into majorities and minorities. II the
minority will not acqniesce the majority must,
or the Government must cease. There is no
other alternative for continuing the Govern
mcntbut aequiescence on the one side or the
otheI II a minority in such case will secede
rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent
which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a
minority OF their own will secede from them
whenever majoritys refuses to be controlled
by such minority. For instance, why may
not portion OF the new Confederaey year
or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precise.
ly as portions OF the present Union now claim
to secede from it? All who herish disunion
sentiments are now being educated to the ex-
act temper Of doing this.
Is there snch perfect identity of interests
among the States to compose a new Union as
to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed
secession? Plainly the central idea of seces.
sion is the essence of anarchy. A majority
held in restraint by Constitutional checks and
limitations and always cl angling easily with the
deliberate changes Of popular opinions and sen
tments, is the only true sovereign of free
people Whoever rejects it, does of necessity
fly to anarchy or despo,ism. Unanmity,it
impossible. The rule OF a minority, as per
manent arrangement, is wholly inadnissible
so that rejecting the majority principle, anar
chy and despotisln in some form is all that i.
left.
do not forget the position assumed By
some, that Constitutisnal questions are to b.
decided by the Supreme Court; nor do den,
shat such decisions must be binding in an,
case upon the parties to suit, as to the obec
of that suit, while they are also entitled t,
very high respect and consideration in all par
aliel cases, by all other departments of tn
Government, and whilesit is obviously possibl
that such decisien may be erroneous in an,
gied case still the evil effect following it be
ing limited to that particular case, with th
chance that it may be overruled and never be
come a precedent for other cases, can better h
borne than could the evils OF different prac
tice. At the same time the candid citizen mus
confess that il the policy of the government up
on vital questions effecting the whole people i
to pc irrevocably fixed by the decisions of tn
Supreme Court, the instant they are made il
ordinary litigation between parties in persona
actions, the people will have ceased to hay
: been their own rulers, having to that exten
practically res gned their government into tn
] hands OF that eminent tribunal. Nor is ther
in this view, any utupon the Court or tn
Judges. 1t is duty from which they ma
not shrink, to decide cases properly brought be
fore them. and it is no fault Of theirs if other
seek to turn their decisions to political pur
. poses. .a.e.--
Ore section Of our country believes slavery
right and onght to be extended, while the 9th e
believes 1t IS wrong, and ought not to be exten
ded. This IS the only substantial dispute; 70
q the fugitive slave clause of the constitution, an
the law for the suppression OF the foreigu slav
: trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as an
, law can ever be in a community, where the me
raj sense OF The people imperfectly supports th
law itself. Would thegreat body OF the peopl
: abide bv the dry legal obligation in both cases
: after the separation of the sections, more iha
before? The foreign slave trade, now imper
fectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived
without restriction in one secoon, while fugi
tive slaves, now only partially surrendered
would not be surrendered at all by the other
Physically speaking, We cannot separate; w
cannot remove our respective sections from eacl
other, nor build an impossible wall betweel
them. A husband and wife may be divorced
and 60 out Of the presence and beyond the reacl
Of each other. But the different parts Of ou
country cannot do this. They cannot but re
main face to face, and an intercourse, eithe
aincable or hostile, must continue between
them. Is it possible, then, to make that inter
course more advantageous or more satishctor,
after separating than before? Can aliens max
treaties easier than friends can make laws?--
Can treaties be more faithfully enforced betweel
aliens than laws among Rends? Suppose yo,
go to war; you cannot fight always, and wher