Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-03-13

arc no "vital rights" involved, why have the Re
publieans raised an issue Of life and death on
such basis? Why have they suffered 1.-The
Union to slide" rather than yield their preten
tons or part of them? The President has how
ever given us one test by whichw may determine
what rights are not "vital." His language is,
"All the vital rights of minorities and of indi-
RITUALS are so plainly assured to them by afiirma
tons and negations, guarantees and prohibitions,
in the Constitution that controversies arise
concerning them" 1t follows that all rights about
which controversies ever arise, not "vital;
and consequently (the umpirage of the Supreme
Court being discarded) that in all such cOntro-
versies, either the majority or the minority must
Weld, cor the Government must cease" As in
these free fights, either the majority or the
minority must yield, it is not difficult to say which
will 90 to the wall. The majority will say to the
minority as Uncle John used to say to his boys,
"You or I must do so and so, and won't.
you or must YIELD and won't" Is it posi-
BILE that the trainers of the Constitution intended
to leave their work in so imperfect and rickety
state as all this implies2 We do not believe it.
The object of the President in repudiating the
decisions of the Supreme Court as of any binding
force upon 1.-The Government" indeed upon
anybody else except "the parties to a suit, as to
the object of that suit" is obvious. He wishes to
destroy the effect of that memorable production,
"the Drel Scott decision;" decision which, if
admitted. would be fatal to the leading doctrines
of the Republican party. Weare aware that there
has been difference of opinion, and doubtless
will continue to be- as to the relations of the Su
preme Court and its decisions, to Congress. But
We can not believe that the theory which the
President opposes on this head, will lead to any
greater evils and absurditieS than that which he
advocates. And here we will stop for the present.
We. however, append few remarks from the
Albany Atlas and Argus, in answer to plea
which is often tup by Mr.. LncOln's party, touch
ing the authority of the Supreme Court.
From the Albany Atlas and August
1t must not be forgotten that two-thirds of the
people, in the recent election, declared, with the
Supreme Court, against the right of Congress to
prohibit slavery in the Territories, and that thus,
instead of being new doctrine, 1t is the doctrine
of the greItjursts and public men OF the country
for sixty years.
For this defense of the decisions of the SUI
preme Court the partisans of Mr. Lincoln pre-
tend to find precedent in the history of General
Jackson's struggle with the United States Bank.
The Supreme Court had declared in regard to
the United States Bank, that it Congress deemed
such a measure necessary to the fiscal functions |
of the Government, it might pass. When the
Bank came up for recharter, Gen. jackson de-
clared that bank corporation was not neces-
sary for the collection and disbursement of Fed |
eral revenues; ard he vetoed it. Congress and
the people sustained him, and time has indicated
the justice of his views. There was, in this in |
stance, no collision between the executive or
representative branches on one side, and the judi
cial power on the other, such as Mr.. Lincoln re-
fers to.
In the one case, the Court says Congress has
power, if it deems fit, to incorporate Govern |
ment Bank. Congress merely refuses to exer
else the power.
In the other, the Supreme Court decides that
Congress has no power to interfere with the rights
of citizens to slave property in the territories. |
Mr.. Lincoln says that if in Congress ne would |
disregard the decision and would exercise the |
power; and in his inaugural ne declares that such
a decision shall not bind him as President.
In the case OF the Democratic Congress, under |
Jackson, there was an abstinence from the exer
else of power which the Courts conceded. In the
case of Lincoln and the Black Republican Con
gress, there is usurpation of power denied by the
Courts, and disregard of the rights of private
citizens to their property.
If Mr. Lincoln had declared, after election, that |
he would regard the popular will on the subject
of the Territories, as manifested in the vote Of
about two thirds against him. there would have
been disturbance at the South, no secession,
no necessity for coercion or civil war.
If President Lincoln, upon taking the oath of
office, had simply declared that he would respect
the constitutional rights of citizens in the Terri
tories as well in the States, as declared by the
judicial tribunal and that he would enforce
those rights, he would now disarm the South and
command the support of the North
His false position is, that he has taken the
platform of the "Higher Law" instead of the
Constitution; and while defying the decisions of
he courts in regard to the property of private
citizens threatens civil to the property
las he calls it) of the Federal Government. He
can not stand in this position and command the
confidence of the people.