Year: 1860


of clear constitutional right After al


he is no more than the Chief Executive
: officer of this Government.


His province is not to make, but to exc
. cute the laws; and it is remarkable fact II
; our history, that notwithstanding the re
; peated efforts of the Anti-slavery party, M
d single act has ever passed Congress, unles
b We may possibly except the Missouri Com
r promise. i'm pairing in the slightest degre'
0 the rights of the South to their property II
: slaves: and it may also be observed, judging
e from present indications, that no probabillty


exists of the passage of such an act by I
, majority of both Houses either in the pres
ent or next Congress. Surely, under these


circumstances we ought to be restrained
) from present action, by the precepts OF Hin
, who spake as never man spake, that SUI
, fcient unto the day is the evil thereof
t The day of evil may never come, unless we
, shall rashly bring IT upon ourselves


1t is alleged as a cause for immediate Sc
, cession, that the Southern States are denied
{ equal rights with the other States IN the


common Territories; but by what authority


are these denied? Not by Congress, whic n


has never passed aud, believe, never will
pass any act to exclude slavery from these


Territories, aud certainly not by the Supreme
Court, which has solemnly decided that


slaves are property, and, like all other prop


erty, their owners have the right to take
take them into the common Territories. and


hold them .here under the protection OF the
/ Constitution So far. then, as Congress Is
concerned, the objection is not to any thing
they have already done, but to what they
may do hereafter. 1t will surely be ad-
mitted that this apprehension OF future
danger is no good reason for an immediate
dissolution of the Union. 1t is true that
the Territorial Legislature of Kansas, on
the 23d of February, 1860, passed in great
haste an act over the veto of the Governor,
declaring that slavery is and shall be for
ever 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 it shall be presented in legal
form Only three days after my inaugura
ton 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 peo-
ple and the question has g iven 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 full
power to ann ul the sacred rights of property
This power Congress is expressly forbidden
by the Federal Constitution to exercise;
every State Legislature in the Union Is for
biddea by its own Constitution to exercise
it; it can not be exercised in any State ex-
cept by the people in their highest sovereign
capacity, when framing or amending their
State Constitution. In like manner 1t can
only be exercised by the people OF Terri
tory, represented in a convention OF dele
gates for the purpose of framing Consu-
tuition preparatory to admission as a State
| into the Union, then, and not till 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 subordinate
Territorial legislation.


Were it otherwise, then, indeed would
the equality of the States in the Territories
be destroyed, and the rights of property 10
slaves would depend not upon the guarantees
of the Constitution, but on the shifting
maiorities of an irresponsible Territorial
Legislature Such doctrine, from its
intrinsic unsoundness, can not long inhu-
ence any considerable portion of our people
much less can it afford good reason for
A dissolution of the Union. The most
palpable violation of constitutional duty
which have yet been committed consist in
the act of different State Legislatures to
defeat the execution of the Fugitive-slave
Law. 1t ought to be remembered, however,
that for these acts neither Congress nor
any President can justly be held response
BILE. Having been passed in violation of
the Federal Constitution, they are, there
fore, null and void.


All the Courts, both State and National,
before whom the question has arisen. have,
from the beginning, decided the Fugitive
slave Law to be constitutional. The single
exception is that of State Court in Wis
eonsin, and this has no, only been reversed
by the proper appellate tribunal, but has
met with such universe! reprobation that
there can be no danger from it as prece-
dent. The validity of :his law has been
established over and over again by the
Supreme Court of the United States with
perfect unanimity 1t is founded upon an
express provisioa of the Constitution
auiring 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 well-known fact that
the Constitution itself could never have
been adopted by the convention.


In one form or other, under the acts of
1898, and 1850. both being substantially
the same, the Fugitive-slave Law has been
the law of the land from the days of Wash
ington until the present time. Here clear
case is presented in which it will be the
duty of the next President, as it has been
my own. to &C, with visor in executing this
supreme law against the conflicting enact


ments of State Legislatures. Should he


fail in the performance of this high duty.


he will then have manifested disregard of


the Constitution and laws, to the great in


jury of the people of nearly one-half of


the States of our Union. But are We to


presume in advance that he will thus violate


his duty2 This would be at war With every


principle of justice aud of Christian char


i,v Let MS wait for the s.oyer, ar.