OCR Text |
Show 376 LIDERTY AND SLAVERY. of the Supreme Court. "A decision of the Supreme Court," says he, "cannot alter the Constitution." This is very true; but then, on the other hand, it is equally true that neither can his opinion alter the Constitution. But here the question arises, which is the rule of condtwt for the true and loyal citizen,-the decision of the Supreme Court of the U nitcd States, or the opinion of Governor Chase? We decidedly prefer the former. "Sir," says Mr. Chase, "when gentlemen from the slave States ask us to support the Constitution, I fear they mean only their construction of the Constitution." We mean not so. W c mean neither our nor his constmction of the Constitution, but that construction only which has been given to it by the highest jndicial tribunal in the land, by the supreme und final arbiter in all such conflicts of opinion. But Mr. Chase opposes argument as well as opinion to the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to slavery. "What more natural," says he, "than that gentlemen from the slave States, iu view of the questions likely to come before the Supreme Court, should desire that a majority of its members might have interests like those which they would desire to maintain! lj THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 377 Certain it is that some care llllS 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 N ortheru members of the Court. This is not all. IIow did it happen that substautially 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 wottld be diflicnlt, perhaps, to persuade the people that he is, for the determination of such qnf'stions, any 3~· |