The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-03-08
BALTIMORE.
FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1851


the people and the press, thus far, from the enor-
nifty ofthose doctrines in themselves, and the dan
gers which they brandish over the future The pre-
cipice which is yawning at our very feet, has
startled US from the contemplation of the quick
sands which lie but little way beyond it. We
cannot believe that this paralysis Of the public
mind can be more than momentary. Looking at
the Inaugural merely as State-paper, separated,
altogether, from the dangers and questions of the
moment, and embodying theory of our national
institutions, to be carried out in the future admin
istration of the government, consider its prin-
ciples so utterly subversive of all constitutional
ideas, as to be practically incompatible with the
continuance of the Republic. We should be
without hope, if we believed that the mass of the
nation could long fail TO recognize and repel them.
Those of our readers who have given careful
attention to the document in question, will under
stand, at once, that in speaking so strongly, we
have principal reference to that portion of Mr..
LINcoLN's lucubrations, in which he treats Of the
relative claims of the Supreme Court and popular
majorities to determine controversial questions Of
constitutional law. We shall endeavor to state
his views upon the point, briefly and fairly. If
the statement be absurd, we protest that it is not
our fault. Constitutional rights, Mr.. LINCOLN d.
vdes into two classes-those which are "plainly
written" and those which are not The former
he asserts to be "vita, the latter, he says, are
not BY what process he arrives at the conclusion
that right is not ''vital," merely because it is
not the subject of an express provision" he
does not explain. We had supposed that in cases
of the sort the only matter TO be inquired into
was, whether the thing claimed was right at all.
If it turned out to be a constitutional right of
any sort, we had taken it to be entirely immateri-
al whether it was express or implied, "vitap' or
otherwise; and being the one or the other, we
had regarded it as very clear, that nobody but
the party entitled TO it had any authority 10 de-
termine whether it was ''vital" to him or not.
Least of all did suppose that there pre-
rogative, anywhere existing, to subvert right
which might not be considered ''vital, any more
than the most "vital" right that could be ina
gned. A right is a right, be it of what sort it
may, and to violate it is a wrong. Mr.. LINCOLN,
however, strides over these familiar notions with
grand contempt. About "vital" rights, he says,
there is no controversy among US; it is only the
non-vita ones-those which are not ''plainiy
written''-that cause our troubles. The follow
ing is his language:
Fom questions of this class spring all
sies divide upon them into maorities and mnori
ties III the minority VIII not acquesce, the majority
must or the Government must cease There is other
alternative; for continuing the Government is acquies
one side or the other"
And then he adds, that the majority lis the
only true sovereign of free people,"
In other words: If the Constitution secures to
any individual or State, class of individuals or
States, rights which, unhappily for them, are not
embodied in 'expre8s provisions" they must not
only submit TO the misfortune of having those
rights regarded as not ''vtal" but they must
hold them entirely at the pleasure of the majority
They have not even the right of revolution, much
less secession in such case let the majority be as
tyrannical and wicked as it may. The revolu-
tionary privilege is reserved for clearly written
rights exclusively ''If'' SAYS Mr.. LINCOLN
"By the mere force of numbers, majority should de-
prve minority of any clearlywritten Constitutional
right, it might in moral point of view justify revolu
uon-certainly would, if such right vital
But such is not our case"
Even in the case of the most "vitar' of
rights, it will thus be perceived, that revolution
can only be justified ''in a moral point of view"
In physical point of view, it would still be his
duty, Mr.. LINCOLN thinks to see "that the laws
''of the Union be faithfully executed" upon his
dissatisfied fellow countrymen," which he trusts
twill not be regarded as a menace" He gives
them, however, the consolation that the despotism
to which they might suppose themselves handed
over, by these principles Of republican govern
ment will not damage them greatly. 1t will not
last long. A majority, he says, lis always
"changing easily, with deliberate changes OF
nd
reflection indeed, provided it be well understood,
that the majority shall not change from bad to
worse
Al this point Of his argument, it appears sud-
denly to fash across Mr.. LINCOLN mind, that a
majority, which is ''always changing easily"
may perhaps be regarded as a somewhat uncertain
tribunal for the determination of constitutional
rights, which do not change, however little they
may be respected. He then remembers that there
is Supreme Court, and he thus discourses con-
corning its functions:
81 do not forget the position assumed by some that Con-
ttutonal questions be decided by Supreme
Court Nor do deny that such decisions must be bind
ing in any upon the parties to suit the object
of that suit while they are also entitled to high
pect and consideration in all parallel by all other
possible that such decision may be erroneous in any
given case still the evil effect following it, being lmi
be overuld and become precedent for other ca
ses can better be borne than could the evils of different
practice
At the time the candid citizen confess that
if the policy of the upon vital questions
decisions of the supreme Court the instant that they
made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal
actions the people will have ceased to be their rulers
having to that extent practically resigned their govern
ment into the hands of that eminent tribunal"
1t is hard to consider such propositions as these,
in the temper of calm discussion. Their announce
ment if the American people are true to them
selves and to the principles upon which their gov
eminent is founded, ought to annihilate, at once
and forever, the pestent and wicked faction in
behalf of which they are spoken, 1t is easy to
believe almost nything Of Mr. LNCoLN's own Ca
liabilities, after following on his heels from Spring.
field to Washington but it is almost impossibleto
understand how the clever though unscrupulous
men by whom be is surrounded, can have been
willing to risk themselves, intellectually, upon
such profigate absurdity. We can only suppose
that they have obeyed the Scripture, and have
dealt with their chief-as the wise man bids US
deal with uch-"according to his folly" What
does the whole farrago amount to-stripped of
phraseology? Nothing less than the reputation
of the whole theory of constitutional government,
anu TUG vi stelu 10 Il uellOCTdcy
pure and simple, in which the majority is tyrant
and the minority is slave. If there are two prin-
ciples more sacred than all Others in this
republic of ours-more fundamental and
vital than all the rest-they are these
that the Constitution, whether State or
Federal, is the bulwark Of the rights of the mi
nority against the power of the majority; and that
the Interpretation of the Constitution belongs ex-
clusively, TO the Courts of Justice which it has
established. From the earliest period of free in
situations among us such has been the fixed and
settled Law-an absolute and inseparable condi-
ton of their existence. There is not one Court of
Justice in any State of the whole Union, which
has not consecrated this doctrine as the very life
OF private right and public freedom. Among
those which have stated it most broadly, argued |
IL most ably, and insisted upon it most strenuous
~ without single exception, are the Cour's Of |
Tue states winch are now controlled by the Re-
publican party The Constitution of the UNITED |
STATES extends the judicial mower which |
1t organizes to "all cases arising under
'the Constitution, the laws of the Trv,rpn
ESTATES and treaties made, or which shall he
"made, under their authority" From the or;o;r
of the Government to the present day, the rulinr
of the Supreme Judiciary upon the constitution.
ality of statutes and the Interpretation of the Con-
stitution, has been held conclusive. In the Ian