The Cass County Republican. [volume] (Dowagiac, Mich.) 18??-1880, 1861-03-07

! educated to the exact temper OF doing
this. Is there such perfect identity Of
interest among the States to compose 9
new Union as to produce harmony only,
and prevents new secession? Plainly,
the central idea of secession is the
essence of anarchy, A majority held
in restraint by constitutional checks
land 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 necessity
fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimi
ty is impossible. The rule of the mi.
nority as permanent arrangement is
wholly inadmissable. So that rejecting
the majority principle, anarchy or desop.
tism in some form is all that is left. ]
do not forget the position assumed 5y
some that constitutional objections are
to be decided by the Supreme Court,
nor dol deny that such decisions must
be binding in any case to the parties to
suit, as to the object of that suit,
while they are also entitled to very
high respect aud consideration in all
parallel eases by all other departments
of the Government; and while it is
obviously possible that such decisions
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 be-
come precedent for other cases, can
better be borne than could the evils of
a different practice. At the same time
the candid citizen must confess, that if
the policy of the government upon a
vital question affecting the whole peo-
pie, is to be irrevocably fixed by the
decisions of the Supreme Court, the
instant they are made as in ordinary liti-
cation between parties in personal ac-
tions, the people will have ceased to
be their own rulers to the extent, prae-
tically of resigning their government
into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Nor is there in this view any assault
upon the Court or Judges. 1t is duty
from which they may not shrink to de-
eide 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
believes slavery is right and ought to be
executed, 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 we'll
enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever
be in community, where the moral
sense of the people imperfectly sup
ports the law itself The great body of
the people abide by the dry legal obi
cation in both cases, and few break
over in each. This l 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 imperfeetly suppress
ed, would be imperfectly revived with
out restriction in one section, while fu-
gitive slaves now only partially, not sur
rendered at all by the other. Physi-
cally speaking, we cannot separate we
cannot remove our respective sections
from each other, and build an impassa-
BILE wall between them. A husband
and wife may be divorced and go out
of the presence of and beyond the reach
of each other, but the different parts of
our country cannot do this )? They cam
not but remain face to face, and inter-
course either amicable or hostile must
continue between them. Is it posi-
BILE then to make that intercourse more
advantageous or more satisfactory
after separation than before? Can
aliens m Ike treaties better than friends
can make laws? Can treaties be more
faithfully enforced between aliens than
laws can among friends? Suppose you
go to war, you cannot fight always, and
when, after much loss on both sides,
and no gain on either, you cease fight
ing, the identical questions as to terms
of intercourse are again upon you.
This country with its institutions be-
longs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of
the existing Government they can ex-
ercise their constitutional rights in
amending, or their revolutionary right
to dismember and overthrow it. :
/ cannot be ignorent of the fact that
many worthy or patriotic citizens are
DESTROYS of having the national consti.
tuition amended. While / make no
recommendation of amendment, / fully
recognize the full authority of the peo-
pie over the whole subject, to be ex-
ereised i'm either of the modes pre-
scribed in the instrument itself, and T
should, under existing circumstances,
favor, rather than oppose fair oppor-'
tunity being afforded the people to act
upon it. l will venture to add that to
me the Convention mode seems prefer.
able, in that it deems amendments to
originate with the people themselves,
instead of only permitting them to take
or reject propositions originated by
others not especially chosen for the pur-
pose, and which might not precisely
suit as they would wish others to &C.
cept or refuse. / understand that a
proposed amendment to the Constitu-i
ton, which, amendment, however, I i
have not seen, has passed Congress to
the effect, that the Federal Government
shall never interfere with the domestic
institution of States, including that of
persons held to service. To avoid mis-
construction of what ! have said, /
depart from my purpose, not to speak
of particular amen dments, SO far as to