THE SUPREME COURT.

ed secession Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.

91

a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before "A majority held in restraint by con- them, and it is no fault of theirs if othstitutional check and limitation, and al-ers seek to turn their decisions to politiways changing easily with deliberate cal purposes. One section of our counchanges of popular opinions and senti- try believes slavery is right and ought to ments, is the only true sovereign of a free be extended, while the other believes it people. Whoever rejects it, does, of ne- is wrong and ought not to be extended cessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. and this is the only substantial dispute; Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a and the fugitive slave clause of the Conmajority, as a permanent arrangement, stitution, and the law for the suppression is wholly inadmissible; so that, reject- of the foreign slave trade, are each as ing the majority principle, anarchy or well enforced, perhaps, as any law can despotism in some form is all that is left. ever be in a community where the moral I do not forget the position assumed by sense of the people imperfectly supports some that constitutional questions are to the law itself. The great body of the be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do people abide by the dry legal obligation I deny that such decisions must be bind- in both cases, and a few break over in ing in any case upon the parties to a suit, each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly as to the object of that suit, while they cured, and it would be worse in both caare also entitled to very high respect and ses after the separation of the sections consideration in all parallel cases by all than before. The foreign slave trade, other departments of the government; now imperfectly suppressed, would be uland while it is obviously possible that timately revived, without restriction, in such decision may be erroneous in any one section, while fugitive slaves, now given case, still the evil effect following only partially surrendered, would not be it, being limited to that particular case, surrendered at all by the other. Physiwith the chance that it may be overruled cally speaking, we cannot separate—we and never become a precedent for other cannot remove our respective sections cases, can better be borne than could the from each other, nor build an impassable evils of a different practice. At the wall between them. A husband and same time, the candid citizen must con- wife may be divorced and go out of the fess that if the policy of the government presence and beyond the reach of each upon the vital questions affecting the other, but the different parts of our counwhole people is to be irrevocably fixed try cannot do this. They cannot but reby the decisions of the Supreme Court, main face to face, and intercourse, either the instant they are made, as in ordinary amicable or hostile, must continue between litigation between parties in personal ac- them. Is it possible, then, to make that tions, the people will have ceased to be intercourse more advantageous or more their own masters, unless having to that satisfactory after separation than before? extent practically resigned their govern- Can aliens make treaties easier than ment into the hands of that eminent tri- friends can make laws? Can treaties be bunal. Nor is there in this view any as- more faithfully enforced between aliens sault upon the court or the judges. It is than laws among friends? Suppose you

;

go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you."

service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

In regard to his own especial position in the Government, he said, recalling to the minds of the people that they were the real source of authority:-"The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix the terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves, also, can do this if they choose, but the Executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to

Nor was he unwilling to recognize the desire of a portion of the people, that new provisions should be engrafted on the Constitution to reconcile, if possible, any conflicting interests. "This country," was his language on this subject, "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, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact, that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of hav-administer the present government as it ing the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendations of amendment, I fully recognize the full authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself, and I should, under existing circumstances, favor, rather than oppose, a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add, that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish either to accept or refuse. I understand that a proposed amendment to the Constitution (which amendment, however, I have not seen) has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of States, including that of persons held to

came to his hands, and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people. By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years."

THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY

ASTOR, LENOX AND
TILDEN FOUNDATIONS.

THE NEW CABINET.