the writings-2-第52节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





But　in　all　this　it　is　very　plain　the　Judge　evades　the　only

question　the　Republicans　have　ever　pressed　upon　the　Democracy　in

regard　to　Utah。　　That　question　the　Judge　well　knew　to　be　this：

〃If　the　people　of　Utah　peacefully　form　a　State　constitution

tolerating　polygamy；　will　the　Democracy　admit　them　into　the

Union？〃　There　is　nothing　in　the　United　States　Constitution　or　law

against　polygamy；　and　why　is　it　not　a　part　of　the　Judge's　〃sacred

right　of　self…government〃　for　the　people　to　have　it；　or　rather　to

keep　it；　if　they　choose？　　These　questions；　so　far　as　I　know；　the

Judge　never　answers。　　It　might　involve　the　Democracy　to　answer

them　either　way；　and　they　go　unanswered。



As　to　Kansas。　　The　substance　of　the　Judge's　speech　on　Kansas　is

an　effort　to　put　the　free…State　men　in　the　wrong　for　not　voting

at　the　election　of　delegates　to　the　constitutional　convention。

He　says：



〃There　is　every　reason　to　hope　and　believe　that　the　law　will　be

fairly　interpreted　and　impartially　executed；　so　as　to　insure　to

every　bona　fide　inhabitant　the　free　and　quiet　exercise　of　the

elective　franchise。〃



It　appears　extraordinary　that　Judge　Douglas　should　make　such　a

statement。　　He　knows　that；　by　the　law；　no　one　can　vote　who　has

not　been　registered；　and　he　knows　that　the　free…State　men　place

their　refusal　to　vote　on　the　ground　that　but　few　of　them　have

been　registered。　　It　is　possible　that　this　is　not　true；　but　Judge

Douglas　knows　it　is　asserted　to　be　true　in　letters；　newspapers；

and　public　speeches；　and　borne　by　every　mail　and　blown　by　every

breeze　to　the　eyes　and　ears　of　the　world。　　He　knows　it　is　boldly

declared　that　the　people　of　many　whole　counties；　and　many　whole

neighborhoods　in　others；　are　left　unregistered；　yet　he　does　not

venture　to　contradict　the　declaration；　or　to　point　out　how　they

can　vote　without　being　registered；　but　he　just　slips　along；　not

seeming　to　know　there　is　any　such　question　of　fact；　and

complacently　declares：



　〃There　is　every　reason　to　hope　and　believe　that　the　law　will　be

fairly　and　impartially　executed；　so　as　to　insure　to　every　bona

fide　inhabitant　the　free　and　quiet　exercise　of　the　elective

franchise。〃



I　readily　agree　that　if　all　had　a　chance　to　vote　they　ought　to

have　voted。　　If；　on　the　contrary；　as　they　allege；　and　Judge

Douglas　ventures　not　to　particularly　contradict；　few　only　of　the

free…State　men　had　a　chance　to　vote；　they　were　perfectly　right　in

staying　from　the　polls　in　a　body。



By　the　way；　since　the　Judge　spoke；　the　Kansas　election　has　come

off。　　The　Judge　expressed　his　confidence　that　all　the　Democrats

in　Kansas　would　do　their　duty…including　〃free…State　Democrats；〃

of　course。　　The　returns　received　here　as　yet　are　very　incomplete；

but　so　far　as　they　go；　they　indicate　that　only　about　one　sixth　of

the　registered　voters　have　really　voted；　and　this；　too；　when　not

more；　perhaps；　than　one　half　of　the　rightful　voters　have　been

registered；　thus　showing　the　thing　to　have　been　altogether　the

most　exquisite　farce　ever　enacted。　　I　am　watching　with

considerable　interest　to　ascertain　what　figure　〃the　free…State

Democrats〃　cut　in　the　concern。　　Of　course　they　voted；all

Democrats　do　their　duty；and　of　course　they　did　not　vote　for

slave…State　candidates。　　We　soon　shall　know　how　many　delegates

they　elected；　how　many　candidates　they　had　pledged　to　a　free

State；　and　how　many　votes　were　cast　for　them。



Allow　me　to　barely　whisper　my　suspicion　that　there　were　no　such

things　in　Kansas　as　〃free…State　Democrats〃that　they　were

altogether　mythical；　good　only　to　figure　in　newspapers　and

speeches　in　the　free　States。　　If　there　should　prove　to　be　one

real　living　free…State　Democrat　in　Kansas；　I　suggest　that　it

might　be　well　to　catch　him；　and　stuff　and　preserve　his　skin　as　an

interesting　specimen　of　that　soon…to…be　extinct　variety　of　the

genus　Democrat。



And　now　as　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision。　　That　decision　declares

two　propositionsfirst；　that　a　negro　cannot　sue　in　the　United

States　courts；　and　secondly；　that　Congress　cannot　prohibit

slavery　in　the　Territories。　　It　was　made　by　a　divided　court

dividing　differently　on　the　different　points。　　Judge　Douglas　does

not　discuss　the　merits　of　the　decision；　and　in　that　respect　I

shall　follow　his　example；　believing　I　could　no　more　improve　on

McLean　and　Curtis　than　he　could　on　Taney。



He　denounces　all　who　question　the　correctness　of　that　decision；

as　offering　violent　resistance　to　it。　　But　who　resists　it？　　Who

has；　in　spite　of　the　decision；　declared　Dred　Scott　free；　and

resisted　the　authority　of　his　master　over　him？



Judicial　decisions　have　two　usesfirst；　to　absolutely　determine

the　case　decided；　and　secondly；　to　indicate　to　the　public　how

other　similar　cases　will　be　decided　when　they　arise。　　For　the

latter　use；　they　are　called　〃precedents〃　and　〃authorities。〃



We　believe　as　much　as　Judge　Douglas　（perhaps　more）　in　obedience

to；　and　respect　for；　the　judicial　department　of　government。　　We

think　its　decisions　on　constitutional　questions；　when　fully

settled；　should　control　not　only　the　particular　cases　decided；

but　the　general　policy　of　the　country；　subject　to　be　disturbed

only　by　amendments　of　the　Constitution　as　provided　in　that

instrument　itself。　　More　than　this　would　be　revolution。　　But　we

think　the　Dred　Scott　decision　is　erroneous。　　We　know　the　court

that　made　it　has　often　overruled　its　own　decisions；　and　we　shall

do　what　we　can　to　have　it　to　overrule　this。　　We　offer　no

resistance　to　it。



Judicial　decisions　are　of　greater　or　less　authority　as　precedents

according　to　circumstances。　　That　this　should　be　so　accords　both

with　common　sense　and　the　customary　understanding　of　the　legal

profession。



If　this　important　decision　had　been　made　by　the　unanimous

concurrence　of　the　judges；　and　without　any　apparent　partisan

bias；　and　in　accordance　with　legal　public　expectation　and　with

the　steady　practice　of　the　departments　throughout　our　history；

and　had　been　in　no　part　based　on　assumed　historical　facts　which

are　not　really　true；　or；　if　wanting　in　some　of　these；　it　had　been

before　the　court　more　than　once；　and　had　there　been　affirmed　and

reaffirmed　through　a　course　of　years；　it　then　might　be；　perhaps

would　be；　factious；　nay；　even　revolutionary；　not　to　acquiesce　in

it　as　a　precedent。



But　when；　as　is　true；　we　find　it　wanting　in　all　these　claims　to

the　public　confidence；　it　is　not　resistance；　it　is　not　factious；

it　is　not　even　disrespectful；　to　treat　it　as　not　having　yet　quite

established　a　settled　doctrine　for　the　country。　　But　Judge

Douglas　considers　this　view　awful。　　Hear　him：



〃The　courts　are　the　tribunals　prescribed　by　the　Constitution　and

created　by　the　authority　of　the　people　to　determine；　expound；　and

enforce　the　law。　　Hence；　whoever　resists　the　final　decision　of

the　highest　judicial　tribunal　aims　a　deadly　blow　at　our　whole

republican　system　of　governmenta　blow　which；　if　successful；

would　place　all　our　rights　and　liberties　at　the　mercy　of　passion；

anarchy；　and　violence。　　I　repeat；　therefore；　that　if　resistance

to　the　decisions　of　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States；　in　a

matter　like　the　points　decided　in　the　Dred　Scott　case；　clearly

within　their　jurisdiction　as　defined　by　the　Constitution；　shall

be　forced　upon　the　country　as　a　political　issue；　it　will　become　a

distinct　and　naked　issue　between　the　friends　and　enemies　of　the

Constitutionthe　friends　and　the　enemies　of　the　supremacy　of　the

laws。〃



Why；　this　same　Supreme　Court　once　decided　a　national　bank　to　be

constitutional；　but　General　Jackson；　as　President　of　the　United

States；　disregarded　the　decision；　and　vetoed　a　bill　for　a

recharter；　partly　on　constitutional　ground；　declaring　that　each

public　functionary　must　support　the　Constitution　〃as　he

understands　it。〃　But　hear　the　General's　own　words。　　Here　they

are；　taken　from　his　veto　message：



〃It　is　maintained　by　the　advocates　of　the　bank　that　its

constitutionality；　in　all　its　features；　ought　to　be　considered　as

settled　by　precedent；　and　by　the　decision　of　the　Supreme　Court。

To　this　conclusion　I　cannot　assent。　　Mere　precedent　is　a

dangerous　source　of　authority；　and　should　not　be　regarded　as

deciding　questions　of　constitutional　power；　except　where　the

acquiescence　of　the　people　and　the　States　can　be　considered　as

well　settled。　　So　far　from　this　being　the　case　on　this　subject；

an　argument　against　the　bank　might　be　based　on　precedent。　　One

Congress；　in　1791；　decided　in　favor　of　a　bank；　another；　in　1811；

decided　against　it。　　One　Congress；　in　1815；　decided　against　a

bank；　another；　in　1816；　decided　in　its　favor。　　Prior　to　the

present　Congress；　therefore；　the　precedents　drawn　from　that

course　were　equal。　　If　we　resort　to　the　States；　the　expressions

of　legislative；　judicial；　and　executive　opinions　against　the　bank

have　been　probably　to　those　in　its　favor　as　four　to　one。　　There

is　nothing　in　precedent；　therefore；　which；　if　its　authority　were

admitted；　ough