"Mr. Butler. I would like to ask the Senator, if Congress repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, would Massachusetts execute the Constitutional requirements, and send back to the South the absconding slaves?
"Mr. Sumner. Do you ask me if I would send back a slave?
"Mr. Butler. Why, yes.
"Mr. Sumner. 'Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?'"[79]
To any candid mind, either of these reports renders anything further superfluous. The answer is explicit and above impeachment. Indignantly it spurns a service from which the soul recoils, while it denies no constitutional obligation. But Senators who are so swift in misrepresentation, and in assault upon me as disloyal to the Constitution, deserve to be exposed, and it shall be done.
Now, Sir, I begin by adopting as my guide the authoritative words of Andrew Jackson, in 1832, in his memorable veto of the Bank of the United States. To his course at that critical time were opposed the authority of the Supreme Court and his oath to support the Constitution. Here is his triumphant reply.
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this Act, it ought not to control the coördinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must, each for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President, to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the Supreme Judges, when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.... The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive, when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve."[80]
Mark these words: "Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others." Yes, Sir, AS HE UNDERSTANDS IT, and not as it is understood by others. Does any Senator here dissent from this rule? Does the Senator from Virginia? Does the Senator from South Carolina? [Here Mr. Sumner paused, but there was no reply.] At all events, I accept the rule as just and reasonable,—in harmony, too, let me assert, with that Liberty which scorns the dogma of passive obedience, and asserts the inestimable right of private judgment, whether in religion or politics. In swearing to support the Constitution at your desk, Mr. President, I did not swear to support it as you understand it,—oh, no, Sir!—or as the Senator from Virginia understands it,—by no means!—or as the Senator from South Carolina understands it, with a kennel of bloodhounds, or at least a "dog" in it, "pawing to get free his hinder parts," in pursuit of a slave. No such thing. Sir, I swore to support the Constitution as I understand it,—nor more, nor less.
But Andrew Jackson was not alone in this rule of conduct. Statesmen before and since have declared it also,—nobody with more force and constancy than Jefferson, who was, indeed, the author of it, so far as anybody can be the author of what springs so obviously from common sense. Repeatedly he returns to it, expressing it in various forms. "Each department," he insists, "is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action, and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."[81] I content myself with a single text from this authority. The same rule was also announced by Hon. John Holmes, a Representative from Massachusetts, afterwards Senator from Maine, in the famous debate on the admission of Missouri. "This Constitution," he declares, "which I hold in my hand, I am sworn to support, not according to legislative or judicial exposition, but as I shall understand it."[82] Here is the rule of Jackson, almost in his language, twelve years before he uttered it.
And since Jackson we have the rule stated with great point in this very Chamber, by no less an authority—at least with Democrats—than Mr. Buchanan. Here are a few words from his speech on the United States Bank.
"If all the judges and all the lawyers in Christendom had decided in the affirmative, when the question is thus brought home to me as a legislator, bound to vote for or against a new charter, upon my oath to support the Constitution, I must exercise my own judgment. I would treat with profound respect the arguments and opinions of judges and constitutional lawyers; but if after all they failed to convince me that the law was constitutional, I should be guilty of perjury before high Heaven, if I voted in its favor.... Even if the judiciary had settled the question, I should never hold myself bound by their decision.... I shall never consent to place the political rights and liberties of this people in the hands of any judicial tribunal."[83]
In short, he would exercise his own judgment: and this is precisely what I intend to do on the proposition to hunt slaves.