Year: 1860

n
IN 1886 after the election Of President Buchan
an, and intended tc sustain the Kansas Ne
braskR Bill.


In passing, allow me to say that we make nc
issue with the Supreme Court on that subject


We acknowledge the Supreme Court decision
to be the supreme law ofthe land, and deny tn,
allegation that we intend illegally and faefious


ly to resist the decision Of that Court, and iorcC
kind Of citizenship upon the country will
which we have nothing to do. So far then fol
the Dred Scott decision.


oBITER DIcTA.


Gentlemen, time passes quickly, and o
cSurse cannot 60 elaborately into the argu
ment upon the other part of that which il
claimed to be the decision in the DTed Scot
case, that is, that the law of 1887 first passed by
the Confederation Of States, and re. enacted by
the House Of Representatives at it's first session
under the Constitution in 1889 was unconstitu.
tional. That is the dicta Cf these five judges
Well, now, gentlemen, just let me state one OF
two strong oints that every man of common
sense can understand. Il is the practice of al
courts-cOuTts of common law and courts OI
equally of the United States, and all courts Of
reasonable justice and common sense on Gods
earth, from tae earliest time to the latest day
that when questions come up for decision, they
decide the main question: and that orbiter dcta,
that is, words spoken incidentally,and not TO the
main question, is not law. There are Demos
cratic lawyers that hear me tonight, and they
will bear me out in the statement, and it is
right. There are Just reasons for it, because the
attention Of the judges being bound to the
main issue, they must not be held responsible
for the incidental questions of the case Now,
that is what Justices Mclean and Curtis tell
US, and they are, in my opinion, the ablest
Judges upon the bench. think Justice Curtis
the ablest Judge I ever read after, and he tells
us that when the Supreme Court decided in the
case that it had no jurisdiction there their whole
power ceased. That is what this Judge tells US,
that is what the Republicans say, that is what
every honest man, unbiased by political asso-
Citations and considerations, must say. l say
it, gentlemen, that in my humble judgment, the
rest of the opinion is not law, and in this
am supported by some of the very abiest
judicial minds of the United States. Not only
so, but Justice Curtis shows that the Supreme
Court has decided again and again that obiter
dicta ia not law, and it is not Sd to be consider.
ed. There are decisions in that report quoted alb
solutely made to the effect that these incidental
decisions that come in are not part Of the Law
of the land. Therefore, We say in denial of
what the Democratic party has said to day that
it is not the law of the land. Therefore, we 90
upon that subject for not changing, rather we
deny that it is law, and we appeal to the coun>
try to decide between US. We owe no alIeeiace
to Ras to a law of the United States, but it is
yet open for free dicusssion BY the people Of the
United States, that they may determine it under
the Constitution Of the United States. To so
much we plead guilty.


THE WORLD REGULATE.


Now, as that is an important question, let US
dwell yet a while longer upon 1t. In the first
place, let US see what were the terms of the
old Confederation in connection with it. They
declared gentlemen, before they cedsd these
lands 10 the United States, and that the United
States should have complete control, both pOlit-
ical and practical over them, that is to cay
that they yielded the entire jurisdiction of the
Territory, and the United States under the act
Welding these territories to the United States,
achieved as they were by the common blood
and treasure, it was the determination of all
the States themselves to yield up the entire
control of them, and therefore when the Su-
preme Court undertook to say that that clause
of the Constitution which says, "The Con-
gress shall have power to dispose Of and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting
the territory VI other property of the United
States" does not mean what it says, they are
forced to the absurd conclusion, notwithstand-
ing the object had in view in making the ces-
sion that when the land was given, the
States giving did not mean what they said
look to what q forced construction they are
lriyen. They deny this positive grant ofpower
10 pass laws by Congress 10 prohibit slavery
in the Territories, and the assertion that the
word regulation" is not common term used
by legal men when they intend to confer a
power That is the argument Of the Supreme
Court.


Let us look at that. -Four times is the
word regulation" used in the Constitution
with regard TO grants Of power, and thus, so
far from being an unusual term, it was usual
one in the disposition of power in the United
States. Another clause says that Congress
shall have power TO regulate eommerce."-
Does any Democrat deny that this is legisla-
tive powerl What, under it, have they done!
They not only regulate commerce" under il,
between foreign countries and this. regulating
foreign aud domestic trade, but they passed
the embargo. Whyl Because they had the
power to make all needful rules and regulations
appertaining thereto. In the Territories they
have similar power delegated in somewhat
the same words. Not only had they the power
% cherish commerce, but they hadka right
10 prohibit and destroy commerce ITSELF
Certainly that is legislative power, and it was
exercised under this very term "regulate;"
therefore it is absolutely absurd when the Su-
Dreme Court and the Democratic party under
AXE to say that when It was enacted that Con-
2ress should have the power 10 make all needful
rules and regulations for the Territory, did not
delegate Legislative power. So that the very
anguage that they claim would debar a grant
IF power, is shown, by four clauses of the Con-
stitution, to carry with it that very legislative
power, it even extending to the taking of life.
liberty and property itself.


Don't they say in the Constitution that they
hall have the pOWerl Such was the understand
ng of the old trainers Of the Federal Constitu.
ion-of the old confederation, of the trainers of
he act of 's7, and although the Supreme Court
are bound to acknowledge that all the territory
acquired previous TO the formation Of the Con
tiiution were subject to the control of Congress,
hey come to the conclusion that the Constitu-
ion did not intend to confer the power at all, |
but that its very exercise was prohibited by the
Constitution.


Gentlemen, there was a portion of these
ands, when the Constitution was formed, in
ended to be ceded, and it was known by the |





,eded Georgia and North Carolina afterwards |
,eded their territory for the same reason that
Virginia eeded Illinois and Indiana, and there
ore how absurd it is to say that the trainers Of
he Constitution, when they allowed Congress |
o exclude slavery from the territory which now
s formed into the States Of Illinois and Indi>
ma, did not give them the power to exclude |
lavery from the whole. Il is absurd to say
hat the royyer existed in one case buf did not
n another.


What was the intent and design of the Con- !
titutionl What did it do to carry out that de
ign! The two most prominent conclusions on
,arth, that we can have as to what it was IN
ended to do, is by what they said was to be |
lone and intended to be Done and by what they !
practically did Eight and six, or fourteen |
lines did this Congress carry out the power as
erting that Congress had all the power to make |
'all needful rules and regulations for the Ter |
- v,rnhf ffirr, ~