EXAMINATION OF THAT PART OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE DRED SCOTT CASE, WHICH DECLARES THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE ACT, With an Appendix, CONTAINING: I. THE DEBATES IN THE SENATE IN MARCH, 1849, BETWEEN Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun, II. THE INSIDE VIEW OF THE SOUTHERN SENTIMENT, IN RELATION TO THE WILMOT PROVISO, III. REVIEW OF PRESIDENT PIERCE'S ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS OF DECEMBER, 1856, BY THE AUTHOR OF THE "THIRTY YEARS' VIEW." NEW YORK: D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 346 & 348 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. 1857. KRAUS REPRINT CO. New York 1969 Reprinted from the original edition in the Wesleyan University Library Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by D. APPLETON & COMPANY, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of LC 1-10150 KRAUS REPRINT CO. A U.S. Division of Kraus-Thomson Organization Limited Printed in U.S.A. NOTIFICATION TO THE READER. The writer of this "Examination " was breaking down under the approaches of a terrible attack, while he was still engaged in writing it, and was prostrate before it was finished, leaving some heads untouched, and the outline of others only sketched. Among these last was the head which related to the temporary government in Florida, and the transactions under it; General Jackson being Governor, and commissioned (according to the act under which he was appointed) with the powers of CaptainGeneral and Intendant of Cuba, the Floridas having been a dependency of that Captain-Generalship. The "Examination" states (and all whose memory or home reading goes back twenty-five years, well know the fact), that the power of CaptainGeneral and Intendant was no barren sceptre in Jackson's hand; that he found occasion to use the power, and did so with the energy which belonged to his nature, and was sustained by Mr. Monroe's Administration. But the history of the transactions was not gone into, and the general assertion remained without the justification which this history would give it. That history is now supplied, and will be found in the Abridged Debates of Congress, text and notes (volume vii., now about ready for the press); and is surely of a character and of an authority to put an end to the "Opinion" which nullifies the Missouri Compromise Act, and self-extends the Constitution to territories. Without going further into that history in this brief post scriptum notification, and confining himself to the precise point in issue, the 4 NOTIFICATION TO THE READER. writer will say, that the Administration of Mr. Monroe, expressly, by unanimous Cabinet decision; and each House of Congress, impliedly, and without division, decided that no part of the Constitution and no Act of Congress went to a territory, unless extended to it by Congress. The occasion for making this decision was this:-Judge Fromentin issued a writ of Habeas Corpus to have the body of Ex-Governor Callava (then imprisoned by the order of General Jackson) brought before him, claiming the right to do so under the Constitution, and under the laws of Congress, vesting U. S. Judges with that power. Gov. Jackson denied the power, and dealt militarily with the Judge for issuing the writ, telling him that no part of the Constitution had been extended to the Floridas, nor any Act of Congress, authorizing him to issue the writ. The case was brought before the President and before Congress, and received the decision above stated. And this writer takes it upon himself to affirm (and he was cotemporary with the event, as well as having now traced its history) that the decision of the Cabinet was unanimous upon the point here mentioned, namely: that Judge Fromentin had no right to issue the writ of Habeas Corpus, because no part of the Constitution, nor any Act of Congress authorizing the writ, had been extended by Congress to that territory. WASHINGTON CITY, Nov. 9TH, 1857. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. THE title is an index to the character of this Examination, which only goes to the two points mentioned; and goes to them because they are held to be political, affecting Congress in its legislative capacity, and on which the Supreme Court has no right to bind, or control that body: as heretofore seen in the case of the Bank of the United States, the Sedition law, &c.; cases in which Congress followed its own opinion of its own powers, regardless of the Court's decision; and the Court had no way to compel it to obedience, or to punish it for contempt. sworn. Congress holds its powers from the Constitution, where every grant of authority is preceded by the words-" Shall have power to:" and to the support of which the members are The grant of power is from the Constitution, and the oath is to the Constitution; and it is written, that its words, always the same, may be always seen, and no excuse for disregarding them. The duty of the member-his allegiance-his fealty is to the Constitution; and in performance of this duty -in the discharge of this allegiance-in the keeping of this fealty he must be governed by the words of the instrument, and by the dictates of his conscience. The member may enlighten himself, and should, with the counsels of others: but as authority—as a rule of obligation—as a guide to conduct-the Constitution and the oath alone can govern; and were it otherwise was Congress to look to judicial interpretation for its powers-it would soon cease to have any fixed rules to go by: would soon have as many diverse interpretations as different courts and the Constitution itself, like the Holy Scriptures, in the hands of councils and commentators, would soon cease to be what its framers made it. |