Year: 1860

But are such apprehensions Of contingent
danger in the future sufficient to justify the
immediate destruction Of the noblest system
of government ever devised by mortals p
From the very nature of his Office, and its
high responsibilities, he must necessarily
be conservative. The stern duty of admin
istering the vast and complicated concerns
of this Government affords in itself a guar
antee that he will not attempt any violation
of a clear constitutional right. After all,
he is no more than the chief executive Of
fcer of the Government. His province is
not to make, but to execute the laws; and
it is remarkable fact in our history, that,
notwithstanding the repeated efforts of the
anti-slave-y party, no single Act has ever
passed Congress, unless We may possibly
except the Missouri Compromise, impairing,
in the slightest degree, the rights of the
South to their property in slaves. And it
may also be observed, judging from present
indications, that no probability exists Of
the passage of such an Act, by majority
, of both Houses, either in the present or
next Congress. Surely, under these cir
cumstances, we ought to be restrained from
present action by the precept of Him who
spake as never man spoke, that "sufhcient
unto the day is the evil thereof" The day
of evil may never come, unless we shall
bring it upon ourselves.


1t is alleged as one cause for immediate
secession that the Southern States are de-
MED equal rights with the other States in the
common Territories. But by what authority
are these denied? Not by Congress, which
has never passed, and I believe never will
pass, any act to exclude slavery from these
Territories and certainly not by the Su-
preme Court, which has solemnly decided
that slaves are property, and, like all other
property, their owners have right to take
them into the common Territories, and hold
them there under the protection of the Con-
stitution.


So far, then, as Congress is concerned,
the objection is not to anything they have
already done, but to what they may do
hereafter. 1t will surely be admitted that
this apprehension of future danger is no
good reason for an immediate dissolution
of the Union. 1t is true that the Terrific
rial Legislature of Kansas, on the 23d of
February, 1860, passed in great haste an
Act, over the veto of the Governor, declar
ing that slavery isis, and shall be forever
prohibited in this Territory" Such an
Act, however, plainly violating the rights
of property secured by the Constitution, will
surely be declared void by the judiciary
whenever itshall be presented in legal form.


Only three days after my inauguration
the Supreme Court of the United States
solemnly adjudged that this power did not
exist in Territorial Legislature. Yet such
has been the factious temper of the times
that the correctness of this decision has been
extensively impugned before the public,
and the question has given rise to angry
political conflicts throughout the country.
Those who have appealed from this judg-
ment of our highest constitutional tribunal
to popular assemblies would, if they could,
invest Territorial Legislature with power
to annul the sacred rights of property
This power Congress is expressly forbidden
by the Federal Constitution to exercise
Every State Legislature in the Union is
forbidden by its own Constitution to exer-
else it. 1t cannot be exercised in any State,
except by the people in their highest sover,
eign capacity when framing or amending
their State Constitution. In like manner,
it can only be exercised by the people of a
Territory represented in a Convention of
Delegates for the purpose of framing a Con-
stitution preparatory to admission as State
into the Union. Then, and not until then,
are they invested with power to decide the
question whether slavery shall or shall not
exist within their limits This is an act
of sovereign authority, and not of subordi-
aateTerritorial legislation. Were it 9TH
erwise, then, indeed, would the equality of
the States in the Territories be destroyed,
and the rights of property in slaves would
depend, not upon the guarantees of the Con-
stitution, but upon the shifting majorities
of an irresponsible Territorial Legislature.
Such doctrine, from its intrinsic unsound-
ness, cannot long influence any consider
able portion of our people, much less can it
afford good reason for dissolution of the
Union.


The most palpable violations of constitu-
tional duty which have yet been committed
consist in the acts of the different State
Legislatures to defeat the execution of the
Fugitive Slave law. 1t ought to be remem-
bered, however, that for these Acts, neith-
er Congress nor any President can justly
be held responsible. Having been passed
in vioalation of the Federal Constitution.
they are therefore null and void. All the
Courts, both State and national, before
r whom the question has arisen, have from
= the beginning declared the Fugitive Slave
, law to be constitutional The single excep-
ton is that of State Court in Wisconsin
and this has not only been reverted by the
, proper appellate tribunal, but has met with
such universal reprobation that there can
be no danger from it as precedent. The
validity of this law has been established
over and again by the Supreme Court of the
United States with perfect unanimity. 1t
is founded upon an express provision of
the Constitution, requiring that Fugitive
Slaves who escape from service in one State
to another shall be "delivered up" to their
masters. Without this provision it is a