評論
打印
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny;
至于說某些地方總有些人不顧一切一心想破壞聯邦，并不惜以任何借口圖謀不軌，我不打算肯定或否定；
but if there be such, I need address no word to them.
如果確有這樣一些人，我不必要再對他們講什么。
To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
但對那些真正熱愛聯邦的人,我不可以講幾句嗎?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits,
在我們著手研究如此嚴重的一件事情之前，那就是要把我們的國家組織連同它的一切利益，
its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it?
一切記憶和一切希望全給消滅掉，難道明智的做法不是先仔細研究一下那樣做究竟是為了什么?
Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence?
當事實上極有可能你企圖逃避的禍害并不存在的時候，你還會不顧一切采取那種貽害無窮的步驟嗎?或者你要逃避的災禍雖確實存在，
Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
而在你逃往的地方卻有更大的災禍在等著你；那你會往那里逃嗎?你會冒險犯下如此可怕的一個錯誤嗎?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained.
大家都說，如果憲法中所規定的一切權利都確實得到執行，那他也就會留在聯邦里。
Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied?
那么，真有什么如憲法申明文規定的權利被否定了嗎?我想沒有。
I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this.
很幸運，人的頭腦是這樣構造出來的，沒有一個黨敢于如此冒天下之大不韙。
Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied.
如果可能，請你們講出哪怕是一個例子來，說明有什么憲法中明文規定的條款是沒有得到執行的。
If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right,
如果多數派完全靠人數上的優勢，剝奪掉少數派憲法上明文規定的權利，
it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one.
這件事從道義的角度來看，也許可以說革命是正當的,如果被剝奪的是極為重要的權利，那革命就肯定無疑是合理行動。
But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations,
但我們的情況卻并非如此。數派和個人的一切重要權利，在憲法中，通過肯定和否定、
guaranties and prohibitions,in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them.
保證和禁令；都一一向他們作了明確保證,以致關于這類問題，從來也沒有引起過爭論。
But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration.
但是，在制訂基本法時卻不可能對實際工作中出現的任何問題，都一一寫下可以立即加以應用的條文。
No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions.
再高明的預見也不可能料定未來的一切，任何長度適當的文件也不可能包容下針對一切可能發生的問題的條文。
Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority?
逃避勞役的人到底應該由聯邦政府交還還是由州政府交還呢?
The Constitution does not expressly say.
憲法上沒有具體規定。
May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
國會可以在準州禁止奴隸制嗎?憲法沒有具體規定。
Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
國會必須保護準州的奴隸制嗎?憲法也沒有具體規定。
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities.
從這類問題中引出了我們對憲法問題的爭端，并因這類問題使我們分成了多數派和少數派。
If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease.
如果少數派不肯默認，多數派便必須默認，否則政府便只好停止工作了。
There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other.
再沒有任何別的路可走；要讓政府繼續行使職權，便必須要這一方或那一方默認。
If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them,
在這種情況下，如果一個少數派寧可脫離也決不默認，那他們也就開創將來必會使他們分裂和毀滅的先例；
for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority.
因為，當多數派拒絕接受這樣一個少數派的控制的時候，他們中的少數派便必會從他們之中再脫離出去。
