The Nevada journal., 1861-03-22

from, risk the commission of so fearful mis-
take? All profess to be content in the Union,
if all constitutional rights can be maintained.
is it true then that any right plainly written in
the Constitution has been denied? 1 think not.
Happily the human mind is so constituted that
no party can reach to the audaeity of doing
this thing. If you can offer single instance
in which a plainly written proposition of the
Constitution has ever been denied if by the
mere force of numbers majority shall deprive
a minority of any clearly written constitutional
right, it might in a moral point of view Justify
such decision. 1t certainly would, if such a
right were vital one; but such is not
case. All the vital rights of minorites and in
diyiduals were so plainly assumed by theoriz-
ing alternatives and legislative guarantees and
propositions in the Constitution that controver-
sy never arises concerning them; but no organ
ic law can be framed with provision specific
ally applicable to every question which may
occur in practical administration. No foresight
can anticipate, nor any document of reasona-
BILE length contain express provisions for all
possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor
be surrendered by national State authority?
The Constitution does no. expressly say. May
Congress prohibit slavery in Territories The
Constitution does not express ly say. Must
Congress protect slavery in Territories The
Constitution does not expressly say. From
questions of this class spring all our controver-
sizes and we divide upon them into majOrities
and minorities If the majority must rule
the Government cease, there is no other alterna-
tive Tor continuing the Government but acqui-
esence the one side or the other. If a mi
nority in such case will secede rather than
acquiesce, they will make precedent which in
turn will divide and ruin them. For instance,
why may not a portion of new Confederacy,
year hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely
AS portions ST the present Union now claim to
have seeded from it. AL who cherish disunion
sentiments now being educated to the ex-
act temper of doing this. Is there such perfect
identity in the interests of the States to COM
pose new Union, as to produce harmony only
and prevent renewed secession? Plainly the
central idea Of secession is the essence of an
archy. A majority, held in restraint by con-
stitutional checks and limitations, and always
changing easily with deliberate changes of pop
ular opinions and sentiments, is the only true
sovereign of free people. Whoever rejects it,
does of a necessity fly to anarchy and despot-
ism. Unanimity is impossible. The will of
majority as permanent arrangement, is Who'll
ly inadmissible, SO that, rejecting the majority
principle anarchy and despotism, in some form,
is all that is left. l do not forget the position
assumed by some that constitutional questions
are to be decided by the Supreme Court nor do
| deny that such parties 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 high respect and consideration, in a
parallel case, by all other departments of the
Government, and, while it is obviously posi-
BILE that such decisions may be erroneous in any
given case, still, the evil effect following it
being limited to that peculiar case, with the
chance that it will be overruled and never be-
come precedent for other cases, can be better
borne than could the evils of different prac-
tice. AT the same time the candid citizen mast
confess that if the Government, upon vital ques-
tions affecting the whole people, is to be ire
vocably fixed by the decision Of the Supreme
Court, the instant they are made in ordinary
litigation between parties in personal action,
the people will have ceased to be their own
rulers, having to that extent practically resigned
their Government into the hands of that tribu-
nal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon
the Court or Judges. 1t is a duty from which
they may not shrink to decide cases properly
brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs
if others seek to turn their decisions to polite
al purposes. One section or country be-
lieves 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, for the fugitive slave clause of the
Constitution and the laws for the suppression
of the foreign slave trade are just as well en-
forced perhaps, as they can ever be in n com
munity where the moral sense of the people
supports the law itself. The great body of the
people abide by the very legal obligations in
both cases after the separation of the two
tions. The foreign slave trade, now imperfect
ly suppressed would be ultimately revived
without restriction in one section, while fugi-
tive slaves, now only partially surrendered,
would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we cannot separate, can
not remove our respective sections from each
other nor build an impossible wall between
them. The husband and wife may be divorced,
and so out of the presence or beyond the reach
of each other, but the different parts of
country cannot do this they cannot but remain
face to face, and an intercourse either amicable
or hostile, must continue between them. Is it
possible then, to make that int recourse more
advantageous more satisfactory after sepa-
rating than before? Can aliens make treaties
easier than friends can make laws? Can tire at
les be more faithfully enforced between aliens
than laws among friends? Suppose you go to
war you cannot fight always; and when, after
much loss both Sides there is no gain on
either, you cease to ight--the old identical
questions as to terms of intercourse again
upon you. This country with its institutions
belongs to the people who inhabit it. When
ever they shall grow weary of the existing
Government they exercise their consttu-
tiousl right of amending it, or their revolution
airy right to dismember overthrow it. We
cannot be ignorant of the fact that many wor-
thy, patriotic citizens are dcsirous of having
the National Constitution amended. While L
make recommendation of amendments, L
fully recognize the rightful authority OF the
people over the whole subject, to be exercised
in either of the modes prescribed in the instru-
ment itself, and 1 should under existing cir
cumstances favor, rather than oppose a fair op-
portunity for the people to act upon it. l will
venture to add, that the Constitution made,
seems preferable, in as much it allows the
amendments to originate with the people them
selves, instead of only permitting them to take
specially chosen for the purpose and which
might not be preferred. Such as they would
wish to either refuse or reject.
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, including that of persons held to service.
To avoid misconcepton of what / have said, |
depart from my purpose to speak of particular
amendments, so far to say. that holding i'm
piled constitutional views, Ihave no objection to
its being made express and irrevocable. The
Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from
the people, and they have conferred none upon
him to fix forms for the separation of the States.
The people themselves can do this also if they
choose, but the Executive as such has nothing
to do with it. His duty is to administer and pre-
serve the Government as it came to his hand,
and TO transmit it; unimpaired by him, to his
successor Why should there not be a patient
confidence in the ultimate justice of the people?
Is there any better or equal hope n the world
in our pyesent diHicrltieae Ts