Year: 1861




of the Supreme Court, the instant they
are made in ordinary litigation between
parties in personal action the people
will have ceased to be their own rulers,
having to that extent practically re-
signed their Government into the hands
Of that tribunal. Nor is there, in this
view, any assault upon tho Court of
Judges. 1t is duty from which they
may not shrink, to decide cases prop
crly brought before them; and it is no
fault of theirs if others seek to turn
their decisions to political purposes.


One section of the country believes
slavery is right, and ought to be cx-
tended; while the other believes it is
wrong, and ought not to be extended.
This is the only substantial dispute ;
for the fugitive slave clause of the Con-
stitution, and the laws for the suppress
sion of the foreign slave trade, are just
as we'll enforced, perhaps, as they can
ever be i'll a community where the
moral sense of the people supports the
law itself. The great body Of the pco-
pie abide by every legal obligation in
both cases. After the separation of
the two sections, the foreign slave trade,
now imperfectly suppressed, would be
ultimately revived without restriction
in one section, while fugitive slaves,
now only partially surrendered, would
not be surrendered at all by the other.


Physically speaking, we cannot sep
aratc, cannot remove our respective
sections from each other, nor build an
impossible wall between them. The
husband and wife may be divorced and
go out of the presence or beyond the
reach of each other; but the different
parts of our country cannot do this.
They can but remain face to face, and
an intercourse either amicablc or hos
tile must continue between them. Is
it possible then to make that inter-
course more advantageous or more sat
isfactory after separating than before !?
Can aliens make treaties easier than
friends can make laws! Can treaties
be more faithfully enforced between
aliens than laws among friends Sup
pose you go to war? You cannot fight
always, and when, after much loss on
both sides, there is no gain; your
causes to fight the old identical ques-
tions as to terms of intercourse are
again upon you. This country, with
its institutions, belongs to the people
who inhabit it. Whenever they shall
grow weary Of the existing government
they can exercise their Constitutional
right of amending it, or their revolu-
ti0nary right to dismember or over
throw it. We cannot be ignorant of
the fact, that many worthy, patriotic
citizens are dcsirous of having the Ma
tional Constitution amended. While
l make no recommendation of amend
mcnts, l fully recognize the rightful
authority of the people over the whole
subject, to be exercised in either Of the
modes prescribed in the instrument
itself, and should under existing cer-
cumstanccs favor rather than oppose a
fair opportunity being offered the
people to act upon it. will venture
to add, the Constitutional mode seems
preferable, inasmuch as it allows the
amendments to originate with the peo-
pic themselves, instead only of permit
ting them to tako or reject PROPOSE
ton originated by Others not specially
chosen for the purpose, and which
might not be preferred, or such as they
would wish to either refuse or reject.
understand proposed amendment
to the Constitution-which amendment
however, have not secn-has passed
Congress, to the effect that the Federal
Government shall not interfere with
the domestic institutions Of the States,
including that of persons held to SER
vice. TO avoid misconception Of
what have said, depart from my
purpose to speak of particular amend
ments so far as to say that holding i'm
plied constitutional views, have no
objection to it's being made express and
irrevocablc. The chief magistrate de-
rives all his authority from the people,
and they have conferred none upon him
to fix forms for the separation of the
States. The people themselves can do
this only, if they choose; but the Ex-
ecutivc us such has nothing to do with
it. His duty is to administer and pre-
serve the Governments asst came to his
hand, and to transmitit unimpaired by
him to his successor. Why should not
there be patient confidence in the
ultimate justice of the people? Ia
there any better or equal hope in the
world, in our present difficulties Is
either party without faith being in sight
of the Almighty ruler of nations with
his eternal truth and justice on every