The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-31


From the .ftabama Herald snd Tribune.
Tnr R,onr on SEcEssIox Tuscaloosa
Observer has a long and able article ~ 70 the
right Of State to sscede from the Federal Union,
from which, as it 10 Understood 10 express, BY
authority. the opinion of Governor Collier Of this
State upon that subject, fortified by the views Of
other eminent Statesmen, We deem Il proper TO
make the following extracts containing the essen
tia parts OF the article.
Gov. Collier has never aaid that secession 10
right provided for by the Constitutions; quite me
contrary He maintains that il 10 right outsids
Of the Constitution, not implicitly or expressly
yielded up by the States, who IN their sovereign
capacity are the sole parties TO the federasive CON-
pact il existed previous to the formation 81 the
federal Union, (which we will hereafter make 20
plain, that the ingenious "way faring man" shall
be constrained to admit it) and il IL sI reserved,
under the 10th article of amendments ofthe Con-
stitution, which il az follows ''Ths powers not
delegated to the United States ny the Constssu-
ton, prohibited by it to the States ara reserv,
ed to the States respectively, or to the people,
This is the proposition of mis- Excellency. We
do not propose to argue the question at th. time
The statement ofthe proposition, al Mr.. Weoster
remarked Of the lucid statement Of the late Mr..
Ogden, Of New York, is in itself good argu-
ment.--The governor has not denied that the
right is extra or ultra constitutional; nor has nc
said that it's practical assertion would not be rsvo'
fuliOndTy. we Tcpcut thuS tc uUs WY "~''' 49,
right has never been given up and IL therefore re-
served.
If secession be reserved right, any State may
exercise it, whether Of the old thirteen or not;
for those subsequently admitted, came IN upon
the same footing" with the original States, IN NIL
respects whatsoever" Upon the same hypotne-
Sis no Stale need assert it the first instance by
the sword her withdrawal, if righful, must OF ne
cesssty be peaceful, unless the States adherng to
the Confederacy shall attempt to force her back
into the Union. Whenever force il thus en-
ployed, the party employing force becomes the
aggressor, and the seeding State may righuully
maintain It's sovereignty by all the means anu
power it can command.
But according to the doctrine OF those who
deny the right of secession, seeding State may
be rightfuy subjugated by force, and her citizens
who are active in her service, punished as trait
tors. The assertions Of such opinions indicate
retrogade, rather than progressive movement IN
the science of government Should they ever re.
ceve the popular sanction, we will have proved
ourselves unworthy of the high boon Of constltu-
tonal liberty, and the days of State sovereignty
will have been numbered
The idea Of lashing Il State into Union.
which can only rest upon the basis of interest and
Affections Union that contemns her rights, and
has studiousy essayed TO degrade and dishonor
her. is too absurd for serious contemplation; ana
can only be realized when constitutional rights
shall exist but in nsme; and power and might
shall override all paper boundaries.
We will close this article by reference TO the
arguments and opinions, both Of the distinguished
living and dead from which these deductions may
be made, LIST, That secession and qualification bear
no analogy to each other. 3D. The right of Sc
cession was discussed in the latitudnous and uble
debate on Foote's resolution in 1880, and is con-
sdered in the circumstances against and the ex-
plantations Of the proclamation of 1882, and from
these sources the proposition of the governor de-
rives abundant support.
In 1882, the late P. 2. Barbour, Of the Supreme
Court of the United States, was nominated for
the Vice Presidency, and in answer to certain in
quiries as to his opinions on some Of the great
topics of the day. thus speaks Of uilifcation and
secession.
"The last subject embraced in the resolution,
is that Of notification ! understand this term as
meant to import the right Of the several States, by
interposng their sovereign power to declare void,
within their respective borders, any law which
then may think unconstitutional"
Thus understanding It, am opposed to IT.
will endeavOr briefly to state my doctrine upon the
subject. In general, when question arises,
whether an act Of Congress is constitutional or
not, it belongs to the Judicial department to decide
it, because, in general, the question arises in
case either lin law equity, that is, in con-
troversy between parties, which had taken a
shape for judicial decision. But when the ques-
ton is one Of political power between the Fede-
raj Government and the States, whether the former
has invaded the reserved rights of the latter.
hold that questions of this kind do not belong to
judicial cognzance. That the people of the States
are parties to the compact, in their character Of
States. That the Constitution has not conferred
upon the judicial department any political power
whatever. That therefore, in relation to questions
of this character, there ia no common umpire:
and that consequently the States must decide for
themselves. This is the right--but what is the
remedy, My opinion is, that tae only rightfu
remedy is that secession
In the debate on Foot's resolution the doctrine
Of State rights was largely and LUMINOSITY dis
cussed. On that occasion, the late Edward Liv-
ingston, Gone of the abes jursts the United States
has ever produced said:
"That in cases in which law of the United
States may infringe the constitutional right Of q
State, but which, in its operation cannot be
brought before the Supreme Court under the
terms OF the jurisdiction expressly given in it,
that Court is not created the umpire between a
State that may deem itself aggrieved, and the
General Government"
That If the act be one Of those few which
cannot be submitted to the Supreme Court, and
be one that will, in the opinion Of State. justi-
fy the risk Of withdrawal from the Union, that
this last extreme remedy may at once be re-
sorted TO. -
THAT the theory Of the Federal Government.
being the result Of the general will Of the people |
OF tne UnHed Stntes IN tneir aggregate capacity,
and founded il no degree on compact between the
States, would tend to the most disastrous practi-
cal results. That it would place three-fourths OF
the States at the mercy Of one fourth, and lead in
evitaby to a consolidated government, and finally
to monarchy"
Mr.. Livingston sent the ex-President Madison
copy Of his speech, accompanied by letter.
Mr.. M. returned an answer complimentary Of the
effort, and among other things said
You have succeeded better in your interpre-
tations of the Virginia proceedings in '9s, '99,
than those who have seen in them a coincidence
with the multiplying doctrine so called - The
error in the late comments on The Virginia pro-
ceedngs, has arisen from the failure to distinguish
between what is declnratory Of opinion and what
is ipso Jacfo rrecmtory between the rights Of the
parties and of single party; and between resorts
within the purview Of the Constitution, and the
final right which appeals from Constitution,
cancelled by its abuses to original rights, para
mount to oil constitutions.
At meeting at Charlotte Court house in Viz
ginia, shortly after the proclamation, the late
] Ohm Randolph prepared and read series Of res
outions, which he effectually supported by most
brilliant speech. We extract one Of these rcsolu-
tinna q striki nT1v neripAnt l.