East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1861-03-07

force the exercise of these offices, the at
tempt to do so would be SO irritating, and
so nearly iinpracticable withal, that /
deem it better to iorego for time the
uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repealed, will contin-
ne to be furnished in all parts Of the
Union.
So far as possible the people everywhere
shall have that sense of perfect security
which is most favorable to calm thoughts
end reflection. The course herein indi-
Gated will be followed unless current
events and experience shall show mod
iicstion or change to be proper, and, in
every case and exigency, my best discre-
ton will be exercised according to cir
cumstances actually existing, and with
view and hope OF peaceful solution OF
the national trouble, and the restoration
of fraternal sympathy and affection.
That there are persons in one section
or another who seek to destroy the Union
at all events, and are G lad Of any pretext
to do it, l viii neither affirm nor deny
but, if there be such, | need address no
word to them. To those, however, who
really love the Union, may not speak!
Before entering upon SO grave matter
as the destruction of our national fabric,
with all its benefits, its memories and
hopes, woulG it not be wise to ascertain
previously why we do it? VIII you haz'
zard so desperate a step while there IS 9ny
possibility that any portion OF the Ills
you fly from have no real existence ?
VIII you, while certain ills you hy to are
greater than all the real ones you Hy
from-will you risk the commission OF SO
fearful mistake? All profess to be
content in the Union if all constitutional
rights can be maintained. Is 1t true,
then, that any right plainly written in
the constitution has been denied! L
think not. Happily, the human mind is
SO constituted that no party can reach to
the audacity of doing this. Thing, If
you can, Of single instance in which
plainly-written provision OF the constitu-
ton has ever been denied. If, by the
mere force of numbers, majority shall
deprive a minority of any clearly'wrlttcn
constitutional right, it might, in moral
point of view, justify revolution; 1t GER
tainly would if such right was vital one;
but such is not our case. The vital rights
of minorities and of individuals are so
plainly assured to them by aAirmations,
allegations, guarantees and prohibitions
in the constitution, that controversies
never arise concerning them. But no
organic law can ever be framed with a
provision specially applicable to every
question which may occur IN practical
administration. No foresight can antic-
ipate, nor any document of reasonable
length contain, express provisions for all
possible questions. Shall tugitlves FROM
labor be surrendered by National or
State authorities? The constitution does
not expressly say. Must Congress pro-
tect slavery in Territories? The consti
tuition does not expressly say. From
questions of this class spring all our con-
stitutional controversies, aud we divide
upon them into majorities and minorl
ties. If the minority will not acqulesce
the majority must or the government
must cease There is no alternative for
continuing the government but acqules-
cence on the one side or the other. Ii a
minority, in such case, will secede rather
than scquicsce, they make a precedent
which will in turn ruin and divide them,
for minority of their own ~ill secede
from them whenever majority refuse to
be controlled by such minority. For
instance, why may not any portion oil
new confederacy, year or two hence
arbitrarily secede again, precisely as por-
tions of the present Union now claim to
secede from it? All who cherish disun-
ion sentiments are now being educated
to the exact temper of doing this. There
is no such perfect identity of interest
among the States to compose a new IN
ion as to produce harmony only and pre-
vent new secession. Plainly the cen
trail idea of secession is the essence Of
anarchy. A majority held in restraint
by constitutional checks and limitations,
and always changing easily with deliber-
ate changes Of populur opinions aud SEN
timents, is the only true sovereign of O
free people. Whoever rejects it does OF
necessity fly to anarchy or dcspotism.-
Unaninity is impossible. The rule OF
the minority, as a permanent argument,
is wholly inadmissable, so that, rejecting
the majority principle, anarchy or despot'
ism 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
a suit, while they are also entitled to a
very high respect aud consideration in
all parallel cases by all other departments
of the government; and, while it is obvi.
ouslv possible 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 a
precedent for other cases, can better be
borne than could the evils of o 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 to be irrsvoca.
bly, fixed by the decisions Of the Supreme
Court the instant they were made, as in
ordinary litigation between parties in
personal actions, the people will have