Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1861-03-08


/ forego for time the uses 0f such Offices.
The mails, unless Tepelled. will continue 70
be furnished ia all parts OF the Uuion 80 far as
possible. The people everywhere shall have
that sensa Of perfect security whioh the most
favoratle and calm thought aud reflection Oh
/ the part of the Government can give than. The
course here ind ieaied will 5e tslowed, unless
current events aud experience shall show mod
| Gcaton or change 70 be proper, aud in every
/ case and cxigeneY my best dIscfatiou snail be
/ exercised according to circumstances actually
existing, and with view aud hope OF peace
| tui solution Of tho national troubles ard the
restoration OF fraternal sympathies and affee-
tons. That there arc persons 10 one section
or another who seek to destroy the Union at
I'll events, aud are glad of any pretext to do
! il, will neither afiru uoT deny, but If thcre
! be such, | need address no word TO then.
To those, however, who really love the Ulion,
may not speak, before entering upon so grave
a matter as the destruction of our national fa-
brio with All its benefits, its memories and
hopes! Would il not be wise 60 ascertain pre-
viously why We do 50? Viii you hazard 50
desperate step while there il any possibility
that any portion of the ills you fly from, have
no real existence. Will you, while the certain
| ills you fy to are greater than all tho real ones
you 1y frorn2 VIII you risk the commission Of
so fearful mistake! All profess to be content
in the Union, Il all Constitutional rights ean
be maintained.
l. it true then that any right plainly written
iu the Constitution has been denieds | think
not Happily the human aind is So gDpstitu-
ted that no party can reach to the audacity OF
doing this. Think if you can of single in
stance III which plainly written provision Of
the Constitution has ever been denied. If, by
the, mere force Of numbers, majority shouli
deprive minority of any clearly written Con
sfitutional right, it might in moral point OF
view, justify revolution. 1t certainly would
| ID such right were vital enc. But such Is
not our case. All the vital rights of Ininori
ties and Of individuals are plainly assured
10 thsm by atlfulatioUs and negaiions, gu4ral
tees aud pIohibiIlous iu the Constitution, thai
controversies never arlse co0cerniug them
But no organic law can be framed with
provision specifically applinAbie 10 every ques
tion which may occur in practical adnialstra-
ton. No President can anticipate, npr any
document of reasonable length contain express
provisions ior all possible questions.
Shall fagitiyes from labor be suTreaaered BY
| National or State authority? The Constitution
does not expressly say. Nay Congress prohibit
slavery in the Territorie,l The Constitution
does not expressly say. Musr Congress protect
slavery 10 the Territories TIE Constitution
does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring al our
Constitution. controversies, and We divide
upon them into majorities aud niinorities. Il
the minority will not aeqlesoe tae m,j1rity
aust, or the government must CEASE.
4. ~ IL e.
the Government but acquieseeaee On tbs Que
side er the other. Ii minority in such case
will secedc, rather than acQuiesce. they make
a precedent which 10 turn will divide aud ruiz
them for minority OF their owu viii seceie
from them whaneVer m1joriig refa 'es to b.
controlled by such minority. For instance,
why may rot any portion Of Coafaderaey,
year or tive hence, arbitrarily secsde again
precisely as portions of the present Ualon now
oiaim to secede from it, Ali who cherish dis,
union seDtlments are now being educated 70 the
ex act temper OF doing shis. Is there sach a per-
tect identity Of interests among the States to
compose Rew Uaion b prodaee harmony
only and prevent removed secession?
Plaiaiy, The central IDEA of secession is the
essence Of anarchy. A maj9rily held In re-
straiut by Constitutional checks and Limitations
changes of popular opinious ana sentiments,
is ths only true sovereign of free people.
Whoever rejects it, docs Of necessity az to
anarchy or TO despoSism. Unanisnisy ia inn
possible The rule OF min ority as q perma-
nent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible, 50
that relectlDg the majority principle, anarchy
and despotism IN sons form IS ala tl4t Is left.
do not forget the position assumed by some
n hs., a.
by the Supreme Court, nor do deny that such
decisions must be binding in any case upoa the
parties to SUIT az to the object of that suit,
while they are also entitled to very high rsspecl
and consideration in all parallel cases by ali
oiLer Departments of the Government And,
while il Is obviously possible that such decision
! may b. erroneous IN any given case, still the
evil effect following il Uelng lilAited 10 that
particular cases wIth tue chance that is NAV be
eRerruled aud never become precedent for
other cases, can be better borne than could The
evils of different practice. At the same the
candid citizen must confess, that ii the policy
OF the Government upon vital questions, effect
ing tue whole people, Is TO be irrevocably IKE
by the decisions OF the Supreme Court, the
instant they are made in ordinary litigation /
between parties ia personal actions, the people
will have ceased TO be their Gwn rulers, having
to that exteut practically resigned their gov
ernment ato the bonds of thar eminent trieu.
nal Nor is there 10 this view any assauls unon
the Count or the Judges. i. IS duty iron
which they may not shtink TO decide cases pro-
perry brought before them, aad II is no fault OF
theirs If others seek to turn their decisions t.
politicai purposes.
Oae tectioa of our country believes that
slavery right, and ought y be extended, Wide
toe otaer believes thatit Is wong, aud ought
mol 10 be extended. THIS Is The only suostau-
tial dispute. The fugilive slave cl4nse of the