Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1861-03-05

maintain ITSELF In doing this, there will
| be no blo0dshed or violence, and thare shaIl
be none unless il be forced upon the national
authority. The power cOnfded 10 me will
be used 70 hold, occupy and possess the prop
erty and places belonging TO the govern
meut-to collect duties and imports; but be-
yond what may be necessary for these OBJ
lects, there will be no invasion, no using Of
force against or among people anywhere
Where hostility to the United States ia anv
interior locality shall be 30 great and 30 m
iVersal as to prevent competent resident citi-
zens from holding Federal offices, there
will be no attempt TO force obnoxious stran-
gers among the people that object. While
the strict legal right may exist in the Gov
ernment force the exercise Of these Offices.
the attempt 70 do 20 would be so irritating
and so nearly impraeticable with all, that
deem It better TO forego for q time the uses
Of such Offices. The mails, unless reps led
will continued to be furnished in all parts Of
the Union so far as possible. The people
everywhere shall have that sense Of perfest
security which must favorably calm
thoughts and reflections. The course here
indicated will be followed, unless current
events and experience shall show a modif-
cation OF change to be proper, and ia every
case and eXigency my best discretion will be
exercised according to circumstances actually
existing, and with view and a hope of q
peaceful solution of the national troublesa and
restoration of the fraternal sympathy and AZ
fectiOns. That there are persons in one sec.
ton or another who seek to destroy the
Union at all events, and are glad Of any pre-
text to do it will neither affirm nor deny, but
If there be such, need address no word to
them. To those, however, who really love the
Union, nay not speak before entering upon
so grave matter as the destruction of our
national fabric, with all its bensfts, its men,
ories md hopes? Would il not be wise to
ascertain previously why we do so2 VIII you
hazard so desperate step while there is any
possibility that any portion of the ills yeu
hy from have no real existenee2 VIII you,
while the certain ills you fly to are greater than
all the real ones you ay from2 VIII you
risk the commission of so fearful mistaken
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 2 / think
not. Happily the human mind is so consti-
tuted that no party can reach the audaeity of
doing this. Think, If you can, of a single
instance in which a plainly written provision
OF the Constitution has ever been denied.
II, by the mere force of numbers, a majority
shall deprive minority Of any clearly writ
ten constitutional right, it might, in moral
point OF view, Justify revolution. 1t certain
y would if such right was a vital one. But
such is not the case The vital right Of mi
norities, and cf individuals, are so plainly
assured to them by afirmations and legations,
guarantees andprohibitions in the Constitution
that controversy never arose concerning
them, but no organic law can ever be found
with provision specially applicable to every
question which may occur in a practical
Administration. No foresight can antici-
pate, nor any decision of reasonable length
contain express provisions for all possible
questions. Shall fugitives from labor be
surrendered by national or State authorities?
The Constitution does not expressly say
Must Congress protect slavery IN territories?
The Cehgtitution does not expressly
say. From questions Of this character
spring all our constitutional controversies, and
we divide upon them into majorities and mi
norities. If the minority viii net acquiesce,
the majority must or the Government must
cease. There IS no alternative for continu-
ing the Government but acquiescence on the
one side or the other. If a minority in such
a case will secede rather than acquiesce, they
make precedent which will in turn ruin
and divide them, for minority of their own
will secede from them whenever
a majority refused to be controlled
by such a minority. For instance,
why may not any portion of new eonfed-
eracy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede
again, precisely as portions of the present
Union now claim To secede from it2 Ali
who cherish disunion sentiments are now be-
ing educated to the exact temper of doing
this. Is there such perfect identity OF inter
ests among the States to compose 8 new
Union as to produce harmony only and pre-
vent new secession2 Plainly, the central
idea OF secession is tie essence Of anarchy. A
majority held in restraint by constitutional
checks and limitations and always changing
easily with deliberate changes Of popular opin-
ions and sentiments is the only true sovereign
Of free people. Whoever rejectsit does of ne
cessity fly to anarchy or despotism. IMAM
unity is impossible. The will of the minori-
ty, ss q permanent agreement, is wholly in
admissible, so that rejecting the majority
principle, anarchy or despotism in some
form is all that IS left I do not forget
the position assumed by some that Constitu-
tional objections are to be deciled by Supreme
Court, nor do I deny that such decisions
must be binding in any case to the parties
to a suit as to the object Of that suit, while
they are also entitled to very high respect
and consideration in all parallel cases by
Other. departments Of the government; and
while it is obviously possible that such de-
cision may be erroneous in any given cause,
still the evil effect following it being limited
10 that particular case, with the chance
that it may be OTerruled and never become
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 tie government
upon the vital question affecting the whole
people is to be irrevocably fixed by the deci-
sions Of the Supreme Court, the instant they
are made in ordinary litigation between par
ties in personal actions, the people will have
ceased to be their own unless to that extent
practically to resign their govt into the hands
Of that eminent tribunal, nor is there in this
view any assault upon the Court or the judg-
es. It is a duty from which they may not
shrink to decide cases properly brought be-
fore them. It is no fault Of theirs or Of 9TH
ers 10 seek to turn their decisions 10 political
purposes. One section Of our country be-
lieVe slavery is right and ought to be exten-
ded; while the other believes it is wrong and
ought not to be extended. This IS the only
substantial dispute. In the fugitive slave
clause in the Constitution and th
law for suppression Of foreign slave trade
are as well enforced perhaps as any law can
ever be in a community where the moral
sense Of the people imperfectly supports the
law itself. The great body Of the people
abide by the dry legal obligation in both
cases, and 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 foregn slave
trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be
imperfectly revised without restriction in one
section, while fugitive slaves are now only
partially surrendered at all BY the other
Physically speaking, we cannot separate
we cannot remove our respective sections
fom each other nor build an impossible
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
Z .f ID this