The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-06

/ by the intethgsncer, that fact win almost be
enough of itseH. 70 rescue the principle from the
odium of its support by the Essex Junto.
The right Of secession is asserted in the De-
clsration Of Independence in theory, and by thst
very event in practice That instrument de-
clares II to be the right Of a people to alter or
abolish their government, when ii becomes sub.
versiye of its proper objects. Now if the people
of each State is people in the sense then re-
ferred to, the inference is inevitable. Well, tho
people Of any single State are as much u people
~ contradistnguished from those Of the other
States, rs the people Of the colonies were from
those of the mother country. Nay, more. For
the colonies always acknowledged allegiance to
the crown, and obedience to all acts OF Parlia-
ment, not in violation of certain colonial rights
If the colonies might judge Of this nfraction, and
had the rigM to alter or abolish, us to them
selves, the imperial government, 80 have our
States. And if the right exists, any attempt to
resist its exercise is a Wrong.
The first Constitution We adopted, contained
no recognition in terms Of the right of secession,
but stipulates for perpetual Union, the terms
Of which were unalterable, except by the consent
oferery STATE. Yet Messrs. WAsHINGros, MADI-
SON, HAMILTON g. Co., assembled in separate
conventions at the instance at first Of only two
or three States, and proceeded to form new
Constitution, which expressly provided, that if
nine Of the States would agree to it, they would
seceds from The Union. Were these men all
traitors?
Furthermore, Virginia, New York, and Rhode
Island, each ratified the present Constitution on
the express condition that their people had the
right to resume the powers thereby delegated at
pleasure. And such a condition enured at once
to all the parties to that Union.
Why, il is a solecism In terms to assert that
a State can be held in subsection to any power
against her will. The moment that she is
controlled against her WILL she ceases 10 be Stale
and becomes province. She is indeed accord
ing to the InteNigencer's very appropriate figure
/" a limb" of the body Of the republic" and is
controlled by the head, Of which a limb can be no
part.
The Iatelligencer, of course, denies the right
of the States to tax particular commodities
within their own borders, prorided it is done with
the motire to prevent or restrict The importation
Of such articles from other States-and holds
that the courts will so decide. All! indeed !!
But has it not been held, that if a protective ta-
rffwere resisted before United States Court
on the ground that it was enacted pah The mo-
tire 10 protect domestic Manufactures, that the
Court could not pretend to enquire into the mo-
tives of Congress-, but must presume that the
law was passed for revenue under the power ex-
pressly granted! Can Federal Court enquire
into the motives Of States, and not of the Fed
eral Government
But the Inlelligencer has, unluckily for itself,
answered this latter part of its article by pre-
vious part.
In extolling the late session of Congress for
achat il did mol do the ImeAigencer says:
"No attempt WINS made to enact a law pro-
hDlung tne slAve-traot among tne otales
though, had it been made, and succeeded, the
Supreme Court has, by decision upon case
arising in the State Of Mississippi herself, fore
stalled any act Of that character; having in that
case decided that each State has the exclusive
power to permit or prohibit the trade within her
own limita, and that no such power belongs to
Congress-"
Well, if one Southern State can prohibit /" the
trade" in slaves with another Southern State,
why can she not prohibit the trade in anything
with Northern State The Southern States
recognize no distinction in property between
slaves and cotton, or corn.
The memory Of the Intelligencer is not good
enough to authorize it TO write an article fou
columns and half long.