Year: 1864




reasons to establish the truth of the following
general propositions;


lst, That the Government is constituted by
the Constitution


I'd, That each department derives all of its
power from the Constitution.


3D. That whatever act any officer of the Uni
ted States performs, which is not expressly au-
thorized by the Constitution, is not an act of
the GoYernment-neither is it an official act,
but the individual act of a private citizen, and
therefore is of no binding force whatever.


4th, That such last mentioned act is not only
the unauthorized act of individual, but it is
(if known to the actOr,) a reasonable act to the
government. These propositions are incontro-
yertible; but whether an act is an act of the
government or simply the unauthorized act of
an individual, or set of individuals, may be, and
often is a question of doubt. The question
then arises as to what is the duty of a citizen, in
such cases.


1t has been said, that whenever the Executive
legislative departments perform act ope-
rating upon citizen, that it is the duty of that
citizen to comply with the act until repealed or
declared null by the courts. This proposition
can mean nothing, except that citizen may
choose either to remove the obnoxious act by
appeal to the ballot box or at his peril, violate
the act and submit the disputed point between
himself and the Congress, or President, to the
decision of the courts.


Suppose the operation of the courts was
was suspended, or mpeded in such manner as
to prevent untrammeled decision, and Con-
gress, or the President should attempt to take
life, liberty or property in manner ID s~1sth0r-
lied by the Constitution; would it be the duty
of citizen to comply with these acts of usur-
patton until the courts could act? If so, then
any President, or Congress, might first dispose
of the courts, and then constitute themselves
unlimited sovereigns. They could without any
authority, except their own will, absolutely con-
troll the life, liberty and property of every citi-
zen of the nation; thus constituting themsely
despots, and the people slaves, and it would
still be the duty OF citizen to submit Again,
if it is the duty of every citizen to comply with
every act of Congress and of the President un-
til the same be declared unconstitutional by the
courts, how could the legality of the act be
tested? How could a case get into court? Ger
tainly court cannot declare an act of the
President, or of Congress, void until some per-
son is arraigned before it for the Yiohtion of
those acts of the President and of Congress-
Therefore the illegality, legality could never
be tested in court until there was first a viola
tiOn of that act by citizen Then to say that
a citizen should cOmply with all such acts until
declared null by the courts, would be equiva-
lent to saying, that every citizen must forever
comply with every act, authorized or unauthor-





in fact an unlimited one and the obligation of
non-yiolation of unconstitutional acts, an obli-
cation to support despotism Such doctrine
would be subversive OF the government. The
only proper theory is, that every citizen is in
duty bound to judge for himself as to whether
an act of any department is constitutional or
not. If he comes to the deliberate conclusion
it is not, he is under no moral Obligation to
comply with that act. The only question left,
E. (, s., oI; a4,. I, 1.
He is subject to be prosecuted for his violation
of the act, and if it be declared by the court, a
real act of the government, he must submit to
the penalty which the court awards. 1t follows
from this, however, that it is generally the bet
ter course for a citizen to use his political pow
er at the ballot box to place incumbent in
the Office whence the illegal act proceeded who
would rescind that act If the majority were
against him, he could either submit to the act
which he considered nugatory, or by violating
it, appeal to the courts and abide their decision
If citizen GonceYes that Congress, or Presi-
dent has attempted to do unconstitutional
act he, as patriot, is bound to oppose that act
either in one or the other of these methods If
be desires to do it through his political rights
and power he not OILY has the right of voting
himself but he also has the right to freedom of
speech and freedom of press that he may also
by this means induce others to vote. If he ap-
peals to the law, through courts of justice, he
has right to be heard in the civil courts as
created by constitutional law, and in that open
court he has right to counsel for his defense
and jury to decide upon the facts


AS long as the ballot box freedom of speech
and the freedom of the press remain untram-
meled, as long as citizen is permitted to have
a trial by due of course or process of law a
good citizen will abide by one or the other Of
of these remedies. But suppose the ballot box
is obstructed, the freedom of speech and the
press, and the privilege of trial by due course
of law is destroyed, by usurped authority
what course, then, must citizen pursue? Ger
tainly he is in duty bound to take the next best
remedy which presents ITSELF and if no other
way appears possible, in the last resort he has
the right to resist the usurping power with force
of arms. This should be the resort when all
peaceful means appeared hopeless, and when
there was some prospect of success; but when
ever there might be hope in appeal to arms,
and there should be hope in nothing else it
would be the duty of every citizen to appeal to
arms. 1t would even be more tolerable to re-
sst, without hope of success, and thus die fight
ing for freedom, than to die degraded slaves


The government of the United States was in
stituted, to secure its citizens in personal lib
erty, personal security and security in the own
ership of property, and it is so constituted that
it can never endanger any of these sacred rights.
Whatever endangers these rights is not an act
of the government of the United States, but it
is the act of some other government, to which
no citizen owes allegiance.


The Declaration of independence declares
that "When government becomes destructive
of these ends, l. e., security in life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness, lit is the duty of the
people to alter abolish it" and institute a
new government in its stead. There is an erro-
neous idea prevalent over the whole world 1t
is this, that in some mysterious manner a citi-
zen is bound to support the government which
assumes to govern him. 1t is thought q crime
not to yenerate the government, and this senti-
ment prevails to a greater extent in Russia in
China, or in Turkey, than it does in more lib
eral governments. 1t may be the duty of a man
to venerate and support the government which
is over him, or it may be his duty to overthrow
that government in order to institute a better
one. 1t is not our duty to support the govern
ment of the United States simply because we
are citizens of the United States, regardless of
the fact to whether the government is good
or bad. If the government of the United States
better protects rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit Of happiness, than any other which
we should be able to establish, thenit is our du-
ty to support it. This is the only claim it has
for support. The government of the United
States, experience has shown, is better calcula-
ted to protect the rights of man than that of
any government which ever existed. Human
nature cannot form a better, and if it is de-
stroyed there is million chances that no other