Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1861-03-07

it possibly might, in moral point Of view
justify revolution. 1t certainly would, if
such right was vital one. But sucn is
not our case. The vital rights Of minori-
ties and Of individuals are SO plainly assured
to them by atiirmations and legislative
guarantees and prohibitions in the Constr
tuition.
| do not forget the position assumed by
some that Constitutional objections are to
be decided by the Supreme Court. Nor
DO / deny that such decisions must be
binding in any case to the parties to suit,
as the object of that suit, while they are
also entitled to a very high respect and
consideration in parallel cases with all other
departments of the Government, and while
it is obviously possible that such decisions
may be erroneous in any case, will the
evil effect following it, being limited to that
peculiar cause, 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 con-
fess that if the potency of the government
upon the vital question affecting the whole
people is to be irreparably fixed by the de
cisions ofthe Supreme Court, the instant
they are made III ordinary litigation between
parties in personal action, the people will
have ceased to be their own rulers unless
to that extent practically to resign their
20, ernment into the hands of that eminent
tribunal. Nor is there in this view any as
sault upon the Court OF the Judges. 1t is
duty from which they may not shrink to
decide cases properly brought before them.
1t is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn
their DECISIONS to political purposes. One
section Of our country believe 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 substantial
dispute.
The fugitive slave clause in the Consti-
tuition and the law for the suppression Of
the foreign slave trade are as well enforced
perhaps rs any law can ever be in com
munjty, when the moral sense of the peo-
pie impefeetly supports the law itself
The great body Of the people abide by the
law, willie others deny legal obligation in
both cases, and a few break over in each.
This, | think, 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 imperfectIy
suppressed, would be imperfectly revived
without restriction in one section. while flu
gitiye slaves, now only partially, would
mol be surrendered at all by he other.
Physically speaking, we cannot separate;
we cannot remove our respective sections
from each other. nor build an impossible
wall between them.
A husband and wife may be divorced,
and 60 out Of the presence Of and beyond
the reach of each other, but the different
parts Of our country cannot do this They
cannot but remain face to face, and inter-
course, either amicable or hostile, must con-
tnue between them.
Is it possible then, to make that inter
course more advantageous or mole satisfae-
tory after separation than before? Can
aliens make treaties better than friends can
make laws2 Can treaties be more faith
fully enforced between aliens than laws can
among friends9 Suppose you go to war,
you cannot fight always; and when, after
much loss on both sides and no gain on
either, you cease fighting, the identical
questions as to terms of intercourse are
again upon you.
This country, with its Institutions. be-
longs to the people whoiphabit it. When-
ever they shall grow weary Of this existing
government, they can exercise their Constr
tutional rights in amending, or their reyo-
lutionary right to dismember or overthrow
it.
cannot be ignorant Of the fact that
many worthy and patriotic citizens are de-
sirous Of having the national Constitution
amended; while | make no recommerda-
ton Of amendment, | fully recognize inc
full authority Of the people over the whole
subject to be exercised in either of the
modes furnished in the instrument itself,
and | should, under existing circumstances,
favor rather than oppose fair opportunity
being afforded the people to act upon it.
| will venture to add, that to me the Con-
stitution seems to consider such action
probable, in that it deems amendments to
originate with the people themselves, in
stead Of only permitting them to take or
reject propositions originated by others not
especially chosen for The purpose, and which
might not precisely suit, as they would
wish others to except or refuse. | under
stand a proposed amendment to the Con
stitution, which amendment, however, |
have not seen, has passed Congress, to the
effect that the Federal Government shall
never interfere with the domestic institu-
tons of the States, including that 1f per-
sons held to service.
Toayoid misconstructicn of what have
said, | depart from my purpose not to
speak Of particular amendments, SO far as
10 say, that holding such provisions now to
be implied constitutional law. | have no
objection 70 its being made express and
irreyocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his au-
thority from the people, and they have
esonferred none upon him 10 fix the terms
for the separation Of the States. The peo-
q IL y Al