Year: 1863

Equally dangerous in theory, to the exist
cnce of the government, equally at war with
the fundamental law of the Union and equal


ly ruinous and revolutionary in all its conse-
quences to the present and the future, is the
doctrine q few years since advanced by the
Supreme Court Of our own State, denying the


appellate jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court of
the U s.. from the jud gment Of the State Courts,


upon questions involving the constitutionality
of federal laws. It is but another name for,
or another way of enunciating the doctrine of,
notification Even though the act of Con-


gress which gave rise to that conflict of juris-
diction is, in at least some of its provisions,


most repugnant to the better feelings of man
kind, vet this affords no justification for de-
nying, or attempting to deny, to the agents


OF the Federal Government the right to exer-


else the authority reposed in their hands, by
the terms of the compact to which all the
States are parties-thc Federal Constitution.
The doctrine that State Court caa pronounce


a law of Congress unconstitutional and insist
that from It's Judgment there is no appeal, is
inconsistent with the perpetuity of the Union,


without reference to whether that State be


eastern or western, northern or snuthern.-
Laws must be uniform in their application, or


thev fail to be laws. If the Courts of Wis
consin can say what particular acts of Con-
eress are contrary to the Constitution, and


therefore of no binding force upon her people,


those of South Carolina and Georgia can eX-
ercise the same discretion. l am not contend
ING that the State Courts may not pass upon


these questions as upon all others, when they


are ieeS timately before them, but it is the IA
| tai heresv that from their Judgment no appeal


can be made, from which danger is to be ap-
pretended That theory adopted and en-
| forced and the Union of the States is a myth
| and a dream There would be many inter
| pretations of the Constitution as there arc ri
| val interests in the States. The Courts ef no
| two States would construe that Instrument
| alike where their interests are antag gonistic ;
and, instead of beiag one people, under one
| government, working out one destiny, with


common hopes of the future, we are as null


titude of barqucs exploring an unknown sea,
| with no conlmoa convoy to lead the way. This
cannet he. The American pcoP@c will never


consent to believe that the founders of the
! Rcpublic. and the trainers of the Constitution
were UNEQUAL to the work they ASST gned them


s-lvcs, or incapable of comprehending that


work after they pronounced it complete. We
have all reposed too long in the belief that we


had government-mild,l liberal and just in


its policy, but with sufficient strength, and


ample IN its power, to enforce its mandates


against all opposing forces that should dare to


confront it. Much less have we been taught


to believe that our whole system of govern


ment is so weak, that at the wave of single


judicial hand-that of the Courts of an isola-
ted State--it would crumblc and fall. Too


many and too great were the sacrifices, too


onerous and trying the labors of those men
who laid its foundations, to be reconciled with


the belief that they thought it could thus ca
sily fail. No such construction can ever OBJ


tain, and the Union remain. 1t is subversive


of the government, in direct antagonism to its


verv existence. and fraught with consequences


disastrous in the extreme. 1t is revolution


nothing more, nothing less. Idle, indeed, have
been the hopes Of those men who adopted this


construction in the belief that it would not


result in conflict of opposing forces. Revo-
luton, whether for the ri ght or for the wrong,


is still revolution, and cannot accomplish its


purposes in the name Of law; and, in order tc


Justify itself in the ewes of the civilized world


must be against wrong, not for it; must be


against tyranny and OPPRESSION not for them


must be clothed in the garments of truth, ant
armed with the weapons of eternal Justice, anG
must be against a government and laws toe
oppressive to be borne, and from which there


can be no lawful and peaceful resort. Agains
these, revolutions are justiiable, and must
sooner or later succeed. Is ours such a gov


ernment as this? Are its laws unequal op
pressive, or unjust? Are her citizens insecure
in their persons or their property? Are The


doors of the Courts closed to the oppressed
. and outraged citizen? 1t becomes the people
, of this country, on this anniversary of its in


dependence, to ask themselves whether these
things be true 1t behooves them to ash
whether theirs is a government that is false tt


the principles it has ever professed; whether
it is too weak or unwilling to vouchsafe to tn,
citizen all his rights, all his privileges, pursu
, ant to the terms Of the compact between i
and him, and to answer these questions Will


that truthful solemnity which their import de


mands 1t Is no time to hesitate, no time t.


doubt and quibble but is the governmen
e worthy of our confidence are for it un
v conditionally, and against all its opposers; o
has it broken its plighted faith, and are w
e now to abandon it, and all on board l thinl
:. / can anticipate the answer of the great mas


of the people throughout the free States-es
S pecially those who have sons, brothers an,
= friends in the field. There is no mistakn


their impulses, or those of the soldiers. them


selves TIE union has existed long enough t
Y demonstrate whether it is or is not, worth
of the confidence of the people. 1t Is now n
: doubtful question whether it shall be preserve
: in its original integrity, or whether it should


abandoned and destroyed Many years hay
: eIapsed and many are the yicissitudes throug
: which it has passed, since it and us ambarke
i together IN it we have grown FROM infanc
: to age, from obscurity to influence and power