Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1859-01-17
ALEXANDRIA,:
MONDAY MORNING, JANUARY l., 1859.

MONDAY MORNING, JANUARY l., 1859.
We are far apart from the Richmond En-
ouirer in the divisions of political parties,
and. of course, in our general ideas concern
ing politics and parties. And yet, it has
given us pleasure frequently to concur with
it, of late, in its enunciation of doctrines and
principles. Two or three recent cases OF this
agreement are brought to mind; but 1t Is not
necessary, at this slime, farther to refer to them.
We have now another proposition stated in
the Enquirer, to which We can give our as
sent very cheerfully, claiming, at the same
time. that it is only a rc-itcration of Il doc
rrine which we have always steadily main
tanned, and the truth of which we have la
bored for years to establish. The Enquirer,
of Friday last, in an article on the state of
parties, says
eve frequently see professed ultra-StatcS-
Rights men running into the worst errors OF
Federalism. True philosophy is never ultra;
The mind which recognizes u great political
truth in its entire proportions, "IotuS, te'7es
atque rotundus," avoids the impotent inten-
sites of political fanaticism. Such was the
mind of James Madison. In the writings of
this great constitutional expoundcr, there IS
one thought entwined in warp and woof OF
every constitutional treatise that while the
Union continues, two rules are required
for the entire preservation OF State soNer-
eighty.
LIST. The action of the General Govern
ment must be stringently restricted within
the pale Of it's clearly defined constitutional
powers
Ind. THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT MUST NOT
Re RESTRAINED BY ANY ExrRA-CoSsTITUTIoNAL
RESTRICTION FROM A FULL EXERCISE OF THE
POWERS GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
While the first of these iniunctiOns Is con-
t%inually before the minds of a large class OF
professed States Rights politicians, they seem
entirely to have ignored the second %iniunc-
ton. And yet, the second. equally with the
first. is necessary to the maintenance OF State
sovereignty. More than that, the equilib-
rum of the two is required for the protee-
ton of the reserved powers of the States
and whenever the one monopOlizes the care
and attention of q politician OF . party, to the
exclusion of the other. that politician or thai
party will evidently run aground on the reefs
and shoals of federalism. The reason for
this, a child may read. The constitutional
pomers of the General Government. no less
than the constitutional restrictions Of those
powers, were adapted by the trainers q me
Constitution 10 the protection Of State s0ee'-
eighty"
1t is, as the Enquirer says, the great error
in the reasoning of ultra-States-Right men,
that they will not accept its second PROPOSE
ton. (which, in fact, should be as much a con-
stitutional axiom as the first or accepting It,
will not give it fair play" or allow for its
actual and practical exercise in the opera
tons of government. We do not know that
we can or will follow out all the deductions
of the Enquirer from the proposition it ex-
presses, Tin the cases to which 1t specially
refers but Of its correctness there Is III
our Judgment, no doubt. The best way to
preserve State Rights, is to confine the Gov
eminent to its constitutional sphere. but
within that sphere to favor no hlndrances'
impediments, improper restrictions or res
%traints. 10 oppose the lawful powers OF the
general government, is, in the end, directly
or indirectly, to weaken the lawful power OF
the States, in the working of our political
system.