The weekly pioneer and Democrat., 1861-01-25

SENATOR DOUGLAS, OF ILL,
SENATOR CRir1EHDEN. OF KY,
SENATOR IOUMBS. OF GA,
SENATOR HUNTER. OF VA. and
SENATOR SEWARD, OF N. I.
SENATOR BENJAMIN, OF LOUISIANA.
This distinguished Senator presented in
his speech, delivered on the 3lst ult., some
novel ideas to most people, on the constitu-
tional power Of the federal government to
coerce a state. In referring to the state
ment so frequently made, that the govern
ment merely proposed to enforce laws. and
not declare war against the seeding etates,
be said 1:
Sir, if there was anything in this idea in
theory, you might reduce it to practice
but what can be more absurd, more vague,
more fanciful than the suggestions put
out by gentlemen heref You are going
now, observe, to declare no war and to
coerce no state /; you are simply going to
execute the laws of the United States
against individuals in the state OF South
Carolina. That is your proposition. Is it
serious One gentleman says be will hang
seize, and where is the court to try, where
is the district attorney to prosecute, and
where is the jury to convict : Are you
going to establish all these by arms ? Per-
haps you tell me you will remove him else
where TOR trial. Not 80 our fathers have
not left our liberties so unguarded and 80
unprotected as that. The constitution
originally provided that no man could be
brought to trial for an offence out OF the
state where be committed it. The fathers
were not satisfied with it, and they added
an amendment that be should not be
brought to trial out of the district even in
which be had committed it, You cannot
take hun out of the district. You have
got NO judge, no marshal, no attorney, no
Jurors there I; aud suppose you had, who is
10 a. judge, who is tO convict His fellow
CIT zeDs, unanimous 10 opinion with him,
determined that be has done h's duty, and
has committed no guilt. That is the way
you are gong 10 execute the laws against
treason?
What next? Oh. no, says the Senator
from Ohio, Mr. Wade.) this is what We
will do; We will execute the laws to collect
revenue by bIOcknuing your ports and stop
ping them up. At hrst blush this seems
very amusing mode Of collecting revenue
in South Carolina, by allowing no vessels
to come in on which revenue can be COL
lected. 1t is the srangest OF all possible
iancies that that is the Way OF collecting
revenue there, OF enforcing the laws in the
state against individuals. But first you are
to have 10 war. And what Is blockade?
Does any man suppose that blockade can
exist by nation at peace with another ;
that it is peace power; that it can be ex-
ercised on any other ground than that you
are at war with the party whose ports you
blockade, and that you make proclamation
to all the governments of the earth that
their vessels shall not be authorized to enter
into these ports, because you are reducing
your enemy by the use of regular consti-
tuted, recognized, means? Oh, but perhaps
it is not blockade that you will have ; you
will have an embargo, that is what you
mean. We are guarded here again. The
constitution heads you of at every step in
this Qnixotic attempt to 60 into State to
exercise your laws against her whole citi-
zens without declaring war or c0ercing the
state. You cannot embargo the ports OF
one state without embargoing all your
ports; you cannot shut up one without shut.
ting up all the Constitution of the United
States expressly forbids its. If your block
ade or your embargo were peaceable
measure, you are prohibited by the very
words OF the constitution itself from forcing
vessel bound to or from one state to enter
or clear or pay duties in another, or from
making any regulations OF commerce what
ever, giving any preference to the ports of
one state over the ports of another and
you have no more right to blockade or close
the ports of South Carolina by embargo,
even by act of Congress, than you have to
right to have more than one Senator on
this floor. Your blockade is impractica-
BILE, unconstitutional, out of the power OF
the President.
What is this idea of executing the laws
by armed force against individuals
Gentlemen seem to suppose-and they argue
upon the suppositiOn-that it is possible,
under the Constitution of the United States,
for the President to determine when laws
are not obeyed and to force obedience by the
sword, without the interposition of courts
or justice. Does any man nave such idle
conceit as that? Does be suppose that, by
any possible construction, the power Of the
Federal Congress to call out the militia,
and TO use the army and the navy to suppress
insurrection and to execute the laws. means
that the Preaident is to do it of his own
voition and without the Intervention of the
civil power2 The honorable Senator from
Tennessee, (Mr. Johnson,) the other day,
called upon Us to look at the example OF
Washington, who put down rebellion 10
Pennsylvania. He said we'll that he was
no lawyer, when be cited that General
Washington called forth the militia Of
PepusyIvania and of other states to aid in
executing the laws, upon requisition by
Judge of the Supreme Court Of the United
States certifying to him that the marshal
was unable TO Carry out the Judgments OF
the court.
Mr. johnson, of Tennessee. Understood
that very well.
Mr.. Benjamin. Then what on earth do
you mean by saying that you will 60 into
state aud execute the laws Of the United
States sgf inst individuals, without judge
or Jury there, without marshal or attorney,
with nobody to declare the violation of law,
or order its execution before you attempt to
enforce it? The Senator may not have
intended to assume such position. he has
been unfortunate ia the impressions that he
has produced upon The country
But, cir. other means are suggested. We
cannot 20 to war We are not going to war;
we are not going to coerce state. why"
says the Senator from Illinois, "who talks
of coercing state; you are attempting to