The Alleghanian. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1859-1865, 1861-03-07

were II vital one: bat such Is hot oar ease.
All the vital rights Of n.ino,i.ies and OF in
dividuais are so plainly assured to them oy
afiirUations and negotiations, guarantees ana
prohibitions In the Consultation, that contro-
yersies never arise concerning them No fore
sight can anticipate, any document OF
reasonable length contain express provisions
for all possible questions. Shall fugi.iyes from
labor be surrendered bJ national er State aa-
thority? The Constitution does not expressly
say. May Congress prohibit slavery iii the
territories? The Constitution does not
pressly say. Must Congress protect slavery
in the Territories? The Constitution does not
expressly say. From questions OF tins class
spring all our Constitutional controversies,
and we divide upon them into najorities anc
minorities. If the minority will not acq0iesce
the majority must, or the Government mast
cease. There is no other alternative for con-
tinuing the Government bat acquiescence on
the one side the other. If minority in
such a case Viii secede rather than acquiesce,
they make precedent which i'll turn will di-
vide and ruin them, for minority OF their
own viii secede from them whenever a major
ity refuses to be controlled b such minority.
For instance, why may not any portion OF a
new Confederacy, year or two hence arbltra-
rily secede again. precisely as portions of the
present Union now claim to secede from 1t?
All who cherish disunion sentiments are now
being educated to the exact temper Of doing
this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests
among the States to compose new Union as
to produce harmony only, and prevent renew
ed secession Plainly, the central idea Of
secession is the essence Of anarchy. a ma
jority held in restraint by constitutional
checks and limitations, and always changing
easily with the deliberate changes OF popular
opinions and sentiments, is the only true SOW
ereigu of q free people. Whoever rejects it,
does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism.
Unanimity is impossible. The rule of n mi
',ority, IS permanent arrangement, is wholly
inadmissable that, rejecting the majority
principle, anarchy and despotism in some
form is all that is left.
l do not forget the position assumed by
some, that Constitutional questions are TO be
decided By the Supreme Court nor do | de-
ny that such decisions must be binding in any
case upon the parties to suit, to the Cb
ject OF that suit, while they are also entitled
to very high respect and consideration in all
parallel cases, by all other departments Of the
Government and while it is obviously pos
sble that such decision may be erroneous in
any given case, still the evil effect following
it being limited to that particular case, with
the chance that it may be oyerruled, and never
become q precedent fer other cases. can better
be borne than could the evils OF q different
practice. At the same time, the candid citi-
zen must confess that if the policy of the
government upon vital questions affecting the
whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the
decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant
they made in ordinary litigation between
parties in personal actions, the people will
have ceased to be their own rulers, having TO
that extent practically resigned their govern
ment into the hands Of that eminent tribunal
Nor is there, in this view, any assault upon
the Court or the Judges 1t is duty from
;cb Ibev Sl,r irl- IN 1n nc
properly brought before them, and it is no
fault of theirs if others seek to turn their de-
cisions to political purposes.
One section of our countrJ believes slavery
is right, and ought TO be extended, while the
other believes il is wrong, and ought not TO be
extended This is the only substantial dis
putc; tor the fugitive slave clause of the
Constitution ana the law for the suppression
Of the foreign slave trade, each well
enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in
community where the moral sense of the
people impertectly supports the law itself
Would the great body OF the people abide by
the dry legal obligation in both cases, after
the separation of the sections, more than be-
fore? The foreign slave trade, now imper-
fectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived,
without restriction, in one section, while fu-
gitive slaves, now only partially surrendered,
would not be surrendered ut all by the other.
Physically speaking, we cannot separate ::
we cannot remove our respective sections
from each other, nor build an impossible wall
between them A husband and wife may be
divorced and go out of the presence and be-
yond the reach of each other. But the differ
ent parts of our country cannot do this. They
cannot but remain face to face, and inter-
course, either amicable or hostile, must con-
tinue between them. Is it possible, then, to
make that intercourse more advantageous or
more satisfactory after separating than before?
Can aliens make treaties easir than friends
can make laws? Can treaties be more faith
fully enforced between aliens than laws among
friends? Suppose you go to war; you can
not fight always, and when, after much loss
both sides, and gain on either, you
cease fighting, the old identical questions as
to terms of intercourse are again upon you
The country, with its institutions, belong to
the people who inhabit it. Whenever they
shall grow weary of the existing government,
they can exercise their consttu .ional right of
amending it, or their revolutionary right to
dismember it.
L cannot be ignorant of the fact that many
worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of
having the National Constitution amended.
While | make no recommendation Of amend
ment, l fully recognize the rightful authority
of the people over the whole subject, to be ex-
ercised in either of the modes prescribed in
the instrument itself, and ! should, under ex-
listing circumstances, favor, rather than OPP
pose, fair opportunity being offered the
people to act upon it. l will venture to add
that to me the convention mode seems prefer
able, inasnuch as it allows the amendment to
originate with the people them: elves. instead
only of permitting them to take or reject a
proposition originated by others not especial
ly chosen for the purpose, and which might
not be precisely such as they would wish either
-