Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-06-04
THE CLEVELAND RESOLUTIONS.

THE CLEVELAND RESOLUTIONS.
On our first page will be found the resolutions
adopted by the Macs Meeting at Cleveland. While
there is much in them to commend, they present
some doctrines which appears to us not only erro-
ncous in theory. but utterly incapable Of being re-
duced to practice.
The theory of government set forth in the LIST
clause of the declaration is unsound, if we rightly
understand it-containing an admixture Of truth
and error. Although it is true the Federal govern
ment possesses only delegated powers, so far as
those powers are specified IN the Constitution-the
Supreme Court of the U. S. being the authorized,
final expounder Of the intent Of that instrument
the several States comprising the Uaion are united
on the principle of unlimited subm iSsion to their
General government. A somewhat homely, but
nevertheless philosophical saying declares, you
cannot eat your cake, and have it." Admitting
that each State, as a disunited, independent, SOW
ereign government had a right to establish a tariff,
whtn in convention assembled they delegated that
power to the General government, it will not be
pretended they also continued to retain it. The
maddest advocate of a Protective Tariff, never
imagined that a State could establish one as q
State institution; and when South Carolina in her
State capacity tried ION Free Trade, President
jackson convinced her of her mistake, aud made
her comprehend that the power she had delegated
to Congress she could not reclaim, but was bound
to unlimited submission on that point, SO long as
she remained in the Union.
Sc in regard to persons held to service or labor
in one State under the laws thereof. escaping into
another" The States agreed to resign their indi-
vidual right to release them from such service,
which was not a simple delegation of power, but
an abrogation of it; and they then further consen-
ted to record in the Constitution, not that the sew.
eral States shall attend to having them delivered
up, but an authoritative declaration 'they shalt be
delivered up" and adopted a provision authori-
zing Congress to make all laws which it may Judge
necessary to enforce compliance with this Cohs,i.
tutional compact. So the power to legislate in re-
gard to the rendition of such persons was delega.
ted to Congress and on this, as on tho Tariff, on
Treaties, on making war. on coming money, on
granting titles of nobility; and on MANY other
things, every State owes unlimited submission.
The resolution further asserts that this Govern.
ment was not made the exclusive or final Judge of
the extent of the powers delegated to itself, Blu,
that, as in all cases of compact between parties
having no common judge, each party has an equal
right to judge for itself &c. Who were the
parties to the Federal compact? Not the General
government on the one side, and the State of Ohio
on the other, as might be readily inferred from
the resolution. The General government was nc
party to the compact. The Compact was made be-
tween the States, each State being as much a par
ty as any other. and the General government is
simply the mutually appointed agent to see to the
enforcement of the mutually adopted regulations
and in order to avoid the confusion which seem,
to prevail in the minds of many of our Republican
friends, judges were appointed. who were duly au.
thorized to settle oil questions in regard to thu
meaning of the Constitution, and the constitution.
ality of laws passed BY Congress.
The government Of Ohio, whose powers are del
} egated by the people. the same as the States dele.
gated the powers of the General government, moi
only assumes the right to judge what powers were
delegated to it, and which of the laws passed by ia
legislature are constitutional, and which unconsti.
%tutional. but Furnishes any of the citizens of the
State who practically differ from it in opinion. BY
a parity of reasoning one would conclude that the
U. S. government possesses the same right to
judge of the nature and extent of its delegated
powers, and the Constitutionality of its laws. II
the incarceration of Bushnell and Langston under
the Fugitive Slave Law. dis-qualifes the U. s
government for being a Judge of its legal Iighte in
she premises, then the decision of the State Su
preme Court, endorsing the action of the U. s
District Court and remanding Bushnell and Lang
} ston to the prison where the Federal government
placed them. equally dis-qualiAes the Ohio judici
airy from pronouncing Judgment in the case.
The resolution as we understand it, leaves tn,
reader to infer that each State Is to be Its OWL
final Judge. Then the Tariff is constitutional IL
Pennsylvania, and unconstitutiona in arolina;ther
: the Fugitive Slave Law lie constitutional in Illinois
and unconstitutiona in Vermont; then the African
8 Slave Trade is conItitutional in Georgia and un
l constitutional in Massachusetts How utterl,
r does such doctrine snake confusion worse con
] founded" People may talk as they will atou
I State rights, but unlimited submission to the Gen
! erai government wherein the states have delegate,
liz power to act, is inevitsble-it 10 the pric
4 paid for the Federal Union, and if the people ar
beginning to find they have paid too much for tb,
J national whistle, we can only express the wisl
that they will learn thoroughly the lesson which
the school master, Experienc Q, is teaching them.
The 4sh clause in the declaration afirms that
} reform in the Federal judiciary is necessary to Sc
cure freedom for the individual, and sovereignty
for the State. To talk about this as a practical
thing, is the sheerest folly, and We fear worse
than folly. 1t looks as though it was put forth
merely as SO much political capital-a party catch
word to tickle the people, and cause them to spend
their strength in an effort far less reasonable and