Browsing named entities in Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 2. (ed. Frank Moore). You can also browse the collection for Story or search for Story in all documents.

Your search returned 3 results in 3 document sections:

thority of Gen. Jackson's example at New Orleans, (not mentioned by the Chief-Justice,) afterwards impliedly sanctioned by Congress, who indemnified him for its exercise, and the solemn decision of the Supreme Court, before mentioned, pronounced thirteen years since, and never afterwards questioned by that or any other tribunal — rather than by the authorities relied on by the Chief-Justice, that is to say, a clearly extra-judicial observation of Chief-Justice Marshall, a mere doubt of Mr. Justice Story, an alleged doubt of Mr. Jefferson, nowhere, however, proved to have been felt, of the legality of Gen. Wilkinson's conduct at New Orleans in 1807--conduct in fact approved by him, and not disapproved of by any Congressional legislation — a commentary on the English form of government, a Government resting as to nearly all its powers upon usage and precedent, or to the otherwise unsupported authority of the Chief-Justice, and especially when, as in this instance, he seems to have depar
roper and legitimate meaning, to gain power indirectly. I have not time to go through the history of the country. It is enough to say it ripened within the last few years, and came to maturity under the organization of that party now in power — that party which now has the destiny of the United States in its hands — known as the Republican party. Seven States of the North finally utterly repudiated the most important feature in it — a feature without which, I am told, in the language of Judge Story, the Constitution would never have been made. I mean that obligation the North entered into to return fugitive slaves from our country. Seven States arrayed themselves — perhaps more--seven at least, arrayed themselves in open, palpable, violation of this known portion of the compact. We appealed to them — we believed it was best for all the States, as Washington presided over the Convention that made the Constitution, that all the States should remain in the Union, faithfully perfo
oclamation calling out the militia of the States to the extent of seventy-five thousand men. That call was made under the authority of the act of 1795, and is perfectly in accordance with the law. It has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that that act is constitutional, and that the President alone is the judge of the question whether the exigency has arisen. This decision was made in the celebrated case of Martin agt. Mott. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Judge Story. Let me read from the opinion of the Court: It has not been denied here that the act of 1795 is within the constitutional authority of Congress, or that Congress may not lawfully provide for cases of imminent danger of invasion, as well as for cases where an invasion has actually taken place. In our opinion there is no ground for a doubt on this point, even if it had been relied on; for the power to provide for repelling invasion includes the power to provide against the attempt