The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-01-10


respondent. I have taken six bottles of DR..
Pierce's Golden Medical Discovery, and my
health is now good
Constipation disappears while you sleep
when you take DR.. Pierce's Pellets.
lightly aside, as they do the doctrines
of the Declaration. But perhaps he will
be ready to treat with some respect
more recent utterances
Mr.. Justice Matthews, a great law
yer, great senator, and a great judge,
declares in Yfck Wo, lis U. s.,
When we consider the nature and theory
of our institutions of government, the
principles upon which they are supposed
to rest and review the history. of their
development. we are constrained to con-
clude that they do not mean to leave room
for the play and action of purely perA
sonal and arbitrary power.
Mr.. Justice Brewer, in Gulf Railway
VS. Ellis, 1865 u. S., cites with approbaA
ton this language of Mr.. Justice Mat
thews, and declares that mo language
is more worthy of frequent anslthought9
full consideration He then quotes the
opening sentences of the declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident
that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with GER
tain inalienable rights, that among these
are life liberty, and the pursuit of happi-
ness.
He adds:
While such declaration of principles may
not have the force of organic law, or Be
made the basis cf judicial decision as to
the limits Of right and duty, and while
IN all cases reference must be had to the
organic law of the nation for such limits.
yet the latter is but the body and the
letter of which the former is the thought
ID ik Hlw e. -
read the letter of the constitution in the
spirit OF the Declaration Of Independence
Now, Nh President, I desire to sub
NIT to my brethren and senators this
proposition, and ask them if 1t be not
a rule of universal and commanding
force:
Courts, as MI. Justice Brewer so well
says, may not be able to treat such
declaration of principle as having
the force of organic law, OF make them
the basis of judicial decision In deter
mining constitutional rights which de-
pend upon the letter of the constitution
Courts have no discretion They must
decide in accordance with the law as
declared by the lawmaker, and the law
maker, If within the letter ana language
of the constitution, must settle the
question whether the law he enacts 10
in accordance also with its spirit and
purpose.
But a very different rule is binding
upon the conscience of the legislator
whether the legislation he is framing
be in the form Of a treaty or a. statute
he has discretion within the eonstitu-
tional limits. He may legislate or he
may refrain from legislating. He may
consent to a treaty. or he may withhold
his consent to a treaty. Now affirm
that he is bound-hound the more
Orlxy MT f1oA l<sesc CIV M
ly because his conscience is the
only safety of the people-to refrain
from legislating whenever the legisla-
ton that is proposed be contrary to the
spirit and the purpose of the constitu-
ton, even though he may not be re-
strained by it's letter. He is not to
study the constitution, which he is
sworn to support. to find holes to creep
out of. He is not to search to see
whether the fathers have failed to make
their general language sufficient ~
cover every conceivable case, anu 20
feel at liberty to go against the spnIs
of the constitution IL he find one noe
covered by it's letter.
Now, Mr.. President there are selfa-
tors here yet hesitating as to What tneIr
action may be in the future, WHO WIN
tell you that they loathe ana maze TINS
doctrine that we may buy nations at
Wholesale: that we may acquire I'M
perial powers or imperial regions ny
conquest: that we may make VaSsal
states and subject peoples Wltilout con
stitutional restraint, and against their
will, and without any ieSufe GIN" DNI our
own discretion.
Now T appeal to those gentlemen
,,hanayer and wherever they may be
called to act, to answer to themselves
as the one great proposition, the great
est question that has ever been or ever
in hnir Nl,n
question, not of year or of a con
eress not of a generation not of
Century. but a question pertaining rath-
or to the great period Of a national life.
I might almost say to the great eternity
of national life, whether-even if thai
action be permitted or not by the letter
of the constitutional be not repugnant
to its form and spirit Will they com
nit themselves in principle and In doc
trine to such a policy, and then say that
they will consider hereafter the ques-
ton of how they will act under IL?
Now, 1 should like to ask some of
my honorable friends in this chamber
if this doctrine Of Mr.. Justice Brewer
be true. Is it true that those sentences
in the Declaration Of Independence ars
the thought and the spirit Of which
the constitution is but the body and
the letter? Is it true. or is it false
hood, that the doctrine that govern
ments derive their just power from
the consent Of the governed is to be
applied in interpreting the constitution
of the United States, and controlling
the action of the legislature it creates,
as II the words we're written between
the lines of the constitution itself?
Ihese are rather practical questions
Just now. They are questions to b.
answered, and by the answer future
generations and the people Of the re-
pubic itself will absolve us or Will
condemn us.
Is 1t true, my honorable friend from
connecticut, that before constitutions
ana before legislators all men are crc-
ated equal, or is it only true Of some
OF them?
Is 1t true that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable
rightsE Or is II only true Of some on
them?
Is II true that among those rights
arc life, liberty, and the pursuit of HOY