New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-12-28
THE HIGHER LAW DoC1IIHE At THE
SOUTH.

The Southern pa0ples were geoessAy
and justly opposed to the doctrine OF
higher than human law, as expounded Dy
various eminent Abolitionists against exc
cutting the constitution in regard to the
recovery of fugitive slaves. This law,
though it was an outrage on the feelings
Of many virtuous people, was still an OBJ
legation 80 long as it remainsd unrepesled.
To those who comprehend the true prin-
ciples Of government, it may be explained
that every citizen Of q republic is party
to the government. He is entitled to its
advantages, and must comply with its
engagements Should q law be enacted
inconsistent with his opinions Of right,
he is secured in an appeal to an agreed
judicature, which will determine whether
the act be lawful This appellant is
bound by his constitutional engagement,
to which he himself is party, to accept
and abide by the decree. If there be an
immunity in the decision, the moral
responsibility rests upon the tribunal
which has pronounced, and not upon the
citizen who obeys it.
The question arises, has q citizen no
right to resist or evade the operation Of
law which he may deem unconstitutional
or immoraH We answer that he has but
one right-it is that of renouncing his citi-
zenship and allegiance to the constitution
of the republic, and accept some other
nationality that he may like better. This
right to renounce the allegiance to one
government and accept that of another is
one of the most valued and peculiar
rights of the American citizen. II has
required one bloody war, with . demon
strated purpose to fight sever 'ers IL
necessary, to establish this : .4ral and
inalienable right As an illustration,
were q man . citizen of Utah, he might |
properly regard the personal government
and social institutions of that people .
violation of honor and human laws, yet |
there would be morally no compromise
with such citizen between obeying the
laws or quitting Utah.
We find this doctrine Of higher law |
taken up at the South, and even amended. |
It now reads that if citizen does not |
think law constitutional, or formal act |
of Office proper, he is not merely relieved
from any obligation to execute the one or
obey the other, but is actually invested
with a right to resist or evade the law or
nullify the obnoxious official act. |
We we're somewhat surprised by the
speech of Mr.. Nichols, in which he af-
firms this right Of individual action upon
tie basis of individual opinion. He there
says:
The result of the votes cast q shown by
the actual returns Of the Republican off.
cials gives the ConservAtive.DAmocra
party clear majority of over 5000 votes.
This is followed by an allegation that
this official result has been fraudulently
perverted. Upon this last assumption
Mr.. Nichols says:
Peacefully, fairly, legally elected your
Jvernor by over eight thousand majority
IF the votes of both races in the State,
announce to you my fixed determination to
lssert and maintain my tight to that posi-
hon, and l know that you 1.-THE attendant
crowd are equally determined that shall
10 80. shall DO prepared to do my ach0le |
luty, and shall expect the same from every
,itizsn of Louisiana.
There is an entire omission to state
hat the law of Louisiana, as recognized
md employed by the Democratic party,
las provided formal means by which
he legal vote of the State shall be sscer-
aimed, and that the result has been an
bounced in conformity with law. Mr..
disappointed candidate, thus
ets up his individual opinion in contra
LECTION of the lawful result. He has pro-
laimed the authority of personal inter-
st higher than the law Of the land. He
las taken the chances of being elected,
md even of being counted in, with res
,rvation of the higher right to fight his
way into Office at the head Of others who
WOW the same views and represent the
anne interests. Such is the higher law Of
at the North, amended by
he physical reversal of the law by the
Democracy at the South.
We see from the testimony of Mr..
Patton, president of the Democratic club,
hat he is indoctrinated with the same
higher law theory. We find such phrases
Is this:
That the elec.i IN law is unconstitutional
g q matter of construction; l consider it to
10 so.
He concurs with Mr.. Nichols in the
heory that the contesting candidates
should be allowed to certify the legality of
he retaros. 1t is true that neither of
hese gentlemen declares open war against
he governments to be inaugurated at
or here, but if their doctrine
,e sound it would follow that defeated
,arty is no longer bound by the law, and
nay resort to arms whenever they may
choose to say that their own claims to
office have been improperly denied them.
Will these politicians pursue the logic Of
hese doctrines? Will they resist the legal
declaration of results by armed force?
We mean no disrespect to the courage of
hese gentlemen, but We may infer from
his phrase that MIR. Patton depends upon
he success of Mr.. Tjlden for the enforce
nent of this right to override the law.
lie remarks:
Ny theory is that we could not have our
u % no oloCtod nu1oas ho6 |