ey would desire to
maintain! _Certain it is that some care has been taken to secure such a
constitution of the court, and not without success._" If Mr. Chase, or
any other abolitionist, should insinuate that the decision in question
is owing to such an unfair constitution of the Supreme Court, the answer
is as easy and triumphant as the accusation would be infamous and vile;
for, as is well known, the very decision which is so obnoxious to his
sentiments was delivered by the great jurist of Massachusetts, Mr.
Justice Story, and was concurred in by the other Northern members of the
Court. This is not all. How did it happen that substantially the same
decision has been rendered by the Supreme Courts of New York,
Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania? Were these high tribunals also
constituted with reference to the peculiar interests of the South?
The question is not whether the decision of the Supreme Court, or the
opinion of Mr. Chase, the more perfectly reflects the Constitution. Even
if he were infallible, as the Supreme Court certainly is not, we, the
people of the United States, have not agreed that he shall decide such
questions for us. And besides, it would be difficult, perhaps, to
persuade the people that he is, for the determination of such questions,
any more happily constituted than the Supreme Court itself, with all the
manifold imperfections of its Southern members. But, however this may
be, it is certain that until the people shall be so persuaded, and
shall agree to abide by his opinions, it is the duty of the good citizen
to follow the decisions of the great judicial tribunal provided by the
Constitution of his country.
If you, good citizen of the North, have a right to set up your opinion
in opposition to such decisions, then I have the same right, and so has
every other member of the commonwealth. Thus, as many constructions of
the Constitution would necessarily result as there are individual
opinions in the land. Law and order would be at an end; a chaos of
conflicting elements would prevail, and every man would do that which
seemed right in his own eyes. The only escape from such anarchy is a
just and loyal confidence in the judicial tribunals of the land--is a
subjection of the intense egotism of the individual to the will of the
nation, as expressed in the Constitution and expounded by the
constitutional authorities. Hence, we mean to support the Constitution,
not as _we_ understand it nor as _you_ und
|