on have come much nearer to the truth. If we should say,
indeed, that because the sun has a spot on its surface it is therefore a
great ball of darkness, our argument would be exactly like that of Mr.
Sumner. But that great luminary would not refuse to shine in obedience
to our contemptible logic. In like manner, the authority of the
illustrious Congress of 1793, in which there were so many profound
statesmen and pure patriots, will not be the less resplendent because
Mr. Charles Sumner has, with Titanic audacity and Lilliputian weakness,
assailed it with one of the most pitiful of all the pitiful sophisms
that ever were invented by man.

In regard to the decision of the Supreme Court he says: "Whatever maybe
the influence of this judgment as a rule to the judiciary, it can not
arrest our duty as legislators. And here I adopt, with entire assent,
the language of President Jackson, in his memorable veto, in 1832, of
the Bank of the United States." He then quotes this language, in which
he italicizes the following sentence: "_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._" With these
authoritative words of Andrew Jackson," says he, "I dismiss this topic.
The early legislation of Congress and the decisions of the Supreme Court
can not stand in our way. I advance to the argument." We shall let him
advance.

But we must say a few words in conclusion. Mr. Sumner swears to support
the Constitution as he understands it; but how is it supported by him?
Is it supported by him at all or in any way? Let us see. The clause
respecting "persons held to service or labor," says he, imposes an
obligation, not upon "the National Government, but upon the States." Is
he then in favor of the States passing any law, or doing any act, by
which fugitive slaves may be delivered up? "Never," he replies.
Massachusetts will never do any such thing by his advice or consent.
Surely, then, he will speak a kind word to the good people of
Massachusetts, and advise them to do nothing in violation of this solemn
compact of the Constitution. If he will do nothing to support the
compact, surely he will do nothing to break it down. He will not permit
us to indulge any such charitable hope. For it is his _avowed_ object,
by speech-making and by agitation, to create such a "public opinion" as
"shall blast with contempt, indignation, and abhorrence