The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-10-14


unanimously adopted al one Time, would scarcely
have been changed ut another mem. con, to one
expressing the action of one nation, of which the
/ States were only fragments especially when il
Was only question OF fact stated by the pre-
amble. The only alional conclusion is, that the
convention regarded The two forms as synony-
nous in their meaning, and the one adopted as
preferable. IL better form for two rea.
sons.
LIST. The States, if they had been named,
would have been the very States who, at that
/ period, were termed by the old articles of con-
federation aud known as g The United States of
America" What more natural or proper than TO
waive the separate naming OF the States, for an
EXPIRE sion which more clearly showed the fed
erative character of the present Constitution, by
its references TO their clearly defined federal con
neclion previously
Il Another reason may have been, that as
other States We're To be admitted into the pres
ent Union, 1t was improper to insert the original
names, when subsequent ones could not, con
sistenty with propriely, be incorporated into the
instrument.
Bat onother view, as have stated, has been
taken OF these words that they created con
solldatlon where separation had previously
! existed. This is easily answered. IL is absurd
TO suppose thGt the recital of the parties to the
future relations instituted by il, or should refer
to anything except their relationsat the moment
of and prior to its execution; the question III.
ready sufficiently discussed.
do not think claim more than is legitimate
from the facts thus presented, when | say that
the federal Constitution is compact originally
established and now subsisting bei,oeen soUereign
STATES, as parties thereto, each Of whom, by its
supreme authority, imposed it upon its own citi
zens nor, as | have shown, is this conclusion
Of a continuing sovereignty, affected in any de.
gree by tn creation Of Safe and federal agen
cics, as neither can have any authority upon the
citizen exec pit AS it speaks the supreme power
Of the State.
The federal Constitution imposes upon each
State two relations or classes of obligations
and only two as Is evident from the facts already
adduced
i l. Its relation, as principal, to the govern
ment, its agent, an the common agent IF all the
States. See Form of Va. Ratification referred
to, and Others also, 10Th Amendment to C.
U. 81
2. Its relation to the others as co contractors
upon the terms of the constitutional compact.
The question which am now discussing, the
right under this Constitution ia State to secede
from the Union, is resolved therefore, into this
how far is such right inconsistent with either OF
the relations above stated ! Do either forbid it =?
And here waive the inference in favor ofthis
right, derivabe fron the fact, that the State is
j bound by these two relations for no set or pre-.
scribed period of time that this has been done
under contract not irreyooable in It's nature or
on its face; that no such agency or league is
ever held binding, except at the discretion or
other than revocable at the will Of the principal
or contracting parties.
Il | narrow the question of right to a case of II
violation of the compact by Il sister State or
usurpation of power by the government In re
spect to such, say, that unless the Constitution
forbds the right of the State finally for itself to
judge whether such infraction or usurpaton has
been perpetrated, and upon its dec sion that eli
Their has LeeT, to sepede at pleasure; or unless
1T delegates suoh power exclusively to the gov
eminent it is not only consistent with, but ex.
pressly secured by the terms of the compact to
each State For unless prohibited to the State,
or delegated to the government this, as every
: other power, is reserved by the Constitution to
the State. 10th Amendment Fed Con-, Rati.
fcaton of N. York, Virginia and Rhode Island,
before referred to-
| All political right must Mt last rest in and BE-
determined by, opinion or Judgment. The ques
ton OF infraction or usurpation, therefore, must
practically depend only upon the decision of
the tribunal to whom it may properly BE- sub
mitted.
The right of State to secede upon any such
infraction or usurpaton must, therefore, rest
4 upon the existence of one still further removed
4 Has Il State the right to decide finally for itself
upon the violation of the Constitution in either
of the cases suggested For if the State has
such right of fina decision, and besides that
violation has been peypetrated lis right to de-
termina It's agents authority abused by usurpa.
ton, or to annul a compact broken by one of
the other parties, will not, and cannot be d.
MED
II Is, then, each State such right of final de-
csion for itself, in respect to the two relations
spoken OF above?
As TO the FIRST relation 1t may be assumed as
a settled principle, that, apart from all compact
and independent Of law, the right of a principal
to decide upon the extent Of the powers his
agent in case Of dispute, of determining them in
case of violation Of delegated a thority, or even
at his alb 'olute discretion, is unlimited and gu
preme. IL is undenable, To deny 1t, would be
10 give entire ascendenoy to the deriratipe over
the orieiHalauthorlty; to that Of him who holds
for another's use, over .he beneficiary 1t would
be to convert trust into an absolute power in
fine, to invest the agent with an unlimited con-
troll, and with perpetual existence, by divesting
the original and exclusive right Of the p ncipIl
whose powers alone the agent can exercise, and
thus subjecting his interest entirely to the will
of his own subordinate creature, deriving his
very existence from the will of the principal.
This principle il universally applicable, wheth
or to the case OF governments or individuals
In regard to the former, only remark that there
is scarcely Bill OF Rights Of any Stat in the
Union, which does not adopt the principle Of
our own, that It is the nduti table right of u
community to reform, alter and abolish a gov
eminent, which shall be inadequate OF contrary
to the purposes for which It was designed. Bill
Of h ghts Of Virginia, I'd and 81 Articles.
The sane principle equally holds as to indi-
viduals in all cases, where there is no common
arbiter. Indeed, the right Of principal to de-
termine the authority of his agent at any time
and under all circumstances, is unlimited, ex
cept by his own expressed will; and fortiori,
where his instructions have been disobeyed.
TO BE CONCLUDED TOMORROW
NUT FOR THE ABoLlTIoEIsrs.-Spen
Coleman, a free man Of color, was put upon his
| trio al in tba ,st "A ~ l. ,