Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1858-04-02
~ A correspondent requests US to de-

Union" under the doctrine lately promui-
gated BY the President Tive difference '
Is just the same as that between sun tight (
and tho light Of the sun. The doctrine of
the President is, that mnjorisics can not s
bind themselves by limitations and re- 1
Stristiens, and as the assumption is un- {
qualified, IL has reference to all majorities,
whether In States, or in the Union. .naAt
IF 40 our correspondent seems to claim,
This doctrine is coeyal with the Govern
rnent, we would ask him why ours is gov
eminent Of checks and ballanees2 Had il
been the intention Of its trainers, that bare
majorities should have unlimited power to
do and undo, at win, the form would have
been widely different; but that such was
not their intention, is clearly shown by
the wise and cautions manner in which |
they attempted to guard the rights ofmin-
critics, and even of majorities, against that
tendency to mobocracy which is the banc
of free government Why was the Senate
made distinct from the popular branch?
Because It was designed as check upon
the hasty action of the people, though
their more immediate Representatives
and the election Of Senators was confded
30 the State Legislatures with the sole
view OF removing them further from the
influence Of those fluctuations in popular
sentiment that tend, SO strongly, to husty
and ili-adyised legislation. The Lower
House, reAecting-as is supposed--the
present will Of the majority, may pass a
bill, unanimously. and yet majority Of
one, in the Senate can dofeat fiat bill A
majority of both Houses may oass a bill
and the President---the one MAJ power,
now supreme-cin defeat that bill over the
heads of any majority less than two thirds.
And Congress may pass bill and the
President may sign IL, yet the Supreme
Court can annul il, provided it be viola
ton of the federal Constitution.
To contend that the new doctrine pro-
mulgated by the President, is as old as the
Government, and has been recognized from
the beginning, is sheer nonsense, and we
ask our correspondent how he can recon
Gle the three distinct departments-with
the Senate to check the lower House, the
President to check both and the Supreme
Court paramount over all--with the an
archical doctrine, that majorities were in
tended, by the fathers of the government,
to be invested with unrestricted powers?
The recognition Of such doctrine, and
lis reduction to practice, would resolve the
government into grand mobocracy and
make king numbers-brute force-the sole
rrbiter between the rights of minorities
and absolute oppression.
But, says our correspondent, Estate is
different from the Union and majority
may do in the latter, what majority in
the former, has no right to do" This is
q mere begging Of the question. The
President made no such distinction, and
by not attempting it, saved himself from
the charge Of being fool as we'll as knave.
And the twaddle, too, about the federal
Constitution being a compact between
separate sovreignties, and therefore pro-
tected in mann r unknown to State con-
situations, is equally ridiculous. The
people of a State, are people of the Union,
and all are as much represented, in the
Union, by Congress, the President and the
Supreme Court, as those of a single Stale
aroby its legislature, Governor aud Court
ofappeals The latter are but miniature
editions of the former, and the power of
mJorities within State in no wise differs
from the power of majority in the Union;
aud lift can in the former, make and un-
make constitutions at will, and without
regard to restrictions as TO time and man
nor, 1t can do the same, in the latter, or
che doctrine is proven to be a miserable
humbug. Besides, in the formation of a
State Constitution, each freeman being
considered sovereign, there is as much q
compact between separate sovreignties, as
10 framing the federal Constitution. Each
member Of mi aorty is as much a sovrign
~ each member Of majority, and it is
mainly for the protection Of the former
that written constitutions were devised ;
aud each citizen Of state stands in the
sime relation to that State, as TO sovereign
~, az each State stands to the federal
aion and we can conceive of no greater
pbsurdity than tho assertion that major
ity in State have greater power than q
majority of the whole Union, The as
sumption amounts to nothing more or LEI 8
than an endorsement Of mob law.