war. We talk about a higher law on the subject of resistance to
the law. And there is a higher law. But what is it? It is the right to
passive submission to penalties, or, it is the active ultimate right of
revolution. It is the right our fathers took to themselves, as an
ultimate remedy for unsupportable evils. It means, war and bloodshed. It
is a case altogether out of law. I do not know a man educated to the law
that takes any other ground.

I suppose your Honor did not misapprehend my last remark and that no one
did. When I said resistance to the law, I did not mean to include
resistance for the purpose of raising a constitutional issue. If an
unconstitutional tax is levied, you refuse to pay it and raise the
constitutional question. This right seems to be lost sight of. Persons
seem to think we are to obey statutes and not the constitution. I
understand that the duty to the constitution is above the duty to the
statutes. And therefore I say, by resistance to the law, I mean
combined, systematic, forcible resistance to the law for the purpose of
overcoming all law, or a particular law in all cases; defying the
government to arms, and not for the purpose of raising a constitutional
issue. For this is within the power, nay, it is sometimes the duty of a
citizen. I do not know a position in which a person does a greater good
to his fellow citizens than when he does, as John Hampden did on the
question of ship money, raise, by refusal to obey, the constitutional
issue. And in doing this, he ought to have the approbation of the Courts
and their ministers, and of every person true to the constitution and
the laws.

At the same time that it is important to maintain all these principles,
which are the principles of the defendant, I also think this is a season
when we must be very careful that certain opposite doctrines are not
carried too far. I think it is a time, this day, when it becomes a
judicial tribunal to see to it, that this extraordinary combination of
Executive power and patronage; this alarm and this anxiety at head
quarters, does not lead to a violation of private rights and personal
liberty. I think there is a pressure brought to bear against the free
expression of popular opinion, against the exercise of private
judgment--a pressure felt even in the courts of law, intimidating
counsel, overawing witnesses, and making the defence of liberty a peril.
There is the pressure of fear of political disfranchisement,