The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-07-01
A VICIOUS DOGMA OF THE OPPOSITION.

Napier Oh tho IL III ult al INC DepalhcHt Va pta'o-
VICIOUS DOGMA OF THE OPPOSITION.
Scarcely question arises in the progress of polit
cal events or in the fluctuations Of political parties,
which does not to bring out in holder relief the
distinctive characteristics which mark the two great
political organizations Of this country.
The success and strength of the democratic party
are the result of their prompt apprehension and
steady support of sound principles under all the
fusion mist and obfuscaton which the succession of
events, and the everrecnrrng necessity Of new APP
pcations of principle, are constantly throwing
around public questions. Those who study the ac-
ton of the democratic party often astonshed to
see with what unerrng certainty it threads its way
through the mazes of every new complication of pub
lie affairs and arrives at conclusions and adopts lines
Of policy in every case, bottomed upon the eternal
principles Of its Interchangeable political creed
AS they are the more unerring in their clear and
prompt apprehension of the true course of policy to
be pursued on new questions, the opposition party
under whatever name it may bear at different mo-
ments are sure to fall into error when they
most confident Of the exact proprety Of their policy
Even when the opposition espouse by accident a
democratic principle, and conceive that they have
stolen bolt of the very thunder that has Frustrated
them in the dust often, it is only to realize trial
to its own engineers than to the enemy against which
it is used
Nothing could more strikingly illustrate the prone
ness and certainty of the democratic party to adopt
the right and true policy on any new question Of
politics, and the aptitude of the opposition for
adopting the wrong and untenabe one, than the rela
tive positions occupied by the two parties on the
purely local question of the mode of ratfying the
constitutions Of incipient States The opposition
are ndulging the deluson that they have appropri-
ated one Of the genuine thunderbolts Of the democ
racy, in making the following dogma Of the
cardinal articles in their platform
Rs.olusd, That tho constitution Of every State shall
be submitted to the people for ratification rejection be-
fore being accepted by Congress.
They fancy that they have hit the nail precisely
on the head, rem tetigh acu in making this dogma
their own They think the feat is the clever from
the fact that it is democratic trick stolen by them
selves in this instance refer questions Of this sort
to the people.
For ourselves, we are not apprehensive Of very
serious consequences to the democracy from the
trenchant use of this weapon by the opposition.
We should not be surprised, however, if serious
consequences were to befall its new managers, such
as happen to children who meddle with edge-tools,
or such as were wont to befal the wight who owned
the unlucky gun alluded to somewhere in the British
classics, which,
Whether aimed at duck or plover,
Recoed and kicked the owner
We have a, system of government which clearly
defines the limits Of the jurisdiction appertaining to
the sovereign States of the Union and that appertain
ing to Congress or the federal government Nothing
is clearer than the line of distinction which divides
the local powers of the States from the general pow
ers of the federal government Astate constitution
is local affair." exclusively within the pale of the To-
cal jurisdiction The framing of constitution apper-
tans, moreover, peculiarly to the sovereignty of
State, and is subject especially and sacredly ex-
empt from the unhallowed touch of Congress To
contend that Congress may interfere in the concerns
of State ,impertnently to dictate the modes in
which the State authorities shall direct their inter
nal concerns, more especially the modes in which
they shall ordain their organic law and perform
OIL the nlgneBt acrS OF SLate sOverelRty IL 10 ignore
the whole idea of State sovereignty and to forget
the cornerstone principle Of State rights.
We subscribe to the opinion that the constitutions
OF sovereign States ought to be submitted to the
popular vote of their people for ratification OF re-
lection. If we were citizens of a new State we
should, unless very strong reasons Of public policy
forbade in the special case, most warmly insist upon
the popular ratification Of proposed constitution
and we think we can say with truth that the warm
est advocates of this mode Of ratification for these
Instruments would generally be found in the ranks
Of the democracy Of every State.
But, yet, action which would be perfectly legiti-
mate in the citizens Of State upon local question
may be impairment and reprehensble if taken from
the outside Of the State, by persons parties, or
carnations belonging to outside jurisdictions, by
Congress- Because 1t is proper that the people of
State should insist that constitutions about to
be adopted, should be submitted to popular vote fol
ratification it does not follow that il would be com
potent for Congress, or any organization outside O
the State, TO dictate to the State such mode o.
ratification
II lie this precise policy Of offensive intrusion and