The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-10-28

proposed argument in opposition to the doctrine Of
consolidated government, and 10 favor OF State
suvt regnty, will first quote from the Intelgencer
their own statement Of my prop si ion. and will
y en- c0ndense my views IN the shape VI series OF
interogatories propounded to that journal.
My proposition was thus stated by the Intepf-
ge,ctr':-"Our intelligent correspondent argues
that the sovereign right Of withdra wing
nom the partnership, or ieage OF States,
necessarily results nom the nature OF All
tally 10 sovereign copartners; that each paraer
may have the same option To withdrs as each had
to enter into the alliance, Union league, or com
pact" The Editors then proceed TO say: = Tho
question Ii not whether league ar partnership VI
States, acting by power OF Attorney called a
constitution, necessarily Implies the resulting right
Of each partner TO withdraw from tue agency,
but whether the government under which we use
in fact such an agency as II Ia a-eulnea to be
by those who deduce from its very nature the indie
irashe rig reserved 10 each copartaer Ut 'reak-
ing up the firm at his will aud pleasure. We deny
that the government created under the auspices OF
the consultation OF the United States bea's ady
analogy the authority OF an agent acting Tor GER
tain .'copartncrs under power Of attorney,
and hence we deny, in like manner. the rights
assumed as resulting from such pretended com-
pact Of political association and in support o. our
opinions shall proceed to establish tae following
propositions -
Ths, this 10 . government u the people, and not
MAT 90 wev.r true may be (as oootsaoeA BY sJGs
siDAx) tbst "every lawyer, every ssstes nso, every
schoar knows that soveregs Sat cssnos conat irea
popted attend and comnarce, aud aothiOg else
whatevcrr Appears from tins yards " bist0sy 70 Do
form govsvumert ss.inss vhion Il v possible Tor
sovereign Ststc 70 commit trcasoa
That the formation OF snccsnssltuiIoo the govern
nent tabihod upoer II was uaroFstood ~ the TINS 10
be with The risht u roc-ssiop iunerux
or scsruirg N ANY Dewbev u the Uaioa.
hs. Ito vuguia and Kcetucsy resolutions Of l1eS
mi IL 10
false ryrelaon Of tho Constitution, ~ whsL they
pcnhcr couueoxnoe nor support The editors pro
"a ca 3.' tn. ID here ,oanf upou tie sace
great charter any oisu,e tntiaatiag a. DC o'u
pact 10 providing tor I've interpretation as
II ordiL ana eetse snmeat :" sor-rum ut IN
the cnd ~ anhorts ot the prop,e o the Uut.d
states Tue LAM usge s:wo, toe pe'plr q. tue Cote,
STATS, do ordaib estaosr tns cousttaina Tor the
upitrs Sa'es Of mrrica the pro ie luoi toe sose
reign saie) do eraa aud cstaakh lot contract aao
st,niat this Coz sttatun tUot luis 'sgvucy Tor the
Uuiteo states OF AMERICA, a.
In reply TO these consolidation views ~ the In.
ttliqe,,cer, ! nd, In the drst place, lay duTn
the proposition that all argument may be regarded
~ nrnriy II not en'ireiy, hopeless where tue fun.
damentai and elementary principles OF ANY two
parties ouch NJ the Wing aut democraac) are 30
essentially difere1t--so diametricaiiv opposite
aud here The ancient maxim Is most specially ~.
piicabe contra negat1e7l. I1a1sc7paG non est DIS
putan6ifGn ''-~here PRIMARY and eiem.atary pr,a-
cipies ere denied argument il imPnrsiols. la sioh
all thai remains Is 10 show that The elementary
principles o. the other of the parties are
touuds d and incorrect this | wifi endeaSor t.
effect IN regard 10 the primary and fundamental
principles o the wing or iedersiist party by resort
my 10 the true and obvious siguiic stiou OF
words and the facts Of history and dra ~ing just
and necessary conclusions thrreirvm, without fol.
loving blindly the authority Of distinguished mea,
except where they confirm the conclusions OF rea-
son. In doing this | viii adopt the form OF utter
rogatories, the ouly rational replies To which. l
contend involve a compile and utter refut.tiOa of
fi..... a..t xxt
is dependent tor support.
l. What $ the sgnifio alton of the word Union;
which is not only the universal denomin stion OF
our torn and condition Of government, aud coeya
with It's original establishment, but - most es-
pecialiy tn. wofShipped idol and symbol Of the
cardinal wing or federal party, and elevated oy
the m IN the eryor OF their dolatry, far above the
constitution which created H. and which. on the
other hand. in its pure interpret stion, Is the
cherished symbol Of the democratic crerdl Does
mol this word Union (under the sdRctiied i1spra-
ton OF which. together with the word liberty
exclusive OF the word constitution" the fnfedi
gencer daily contends, for consolidation, as did
Daniel Webster, the author Of that avvrlte motto.
does not this word ''union" signify simply aud
necessarily" "a joining together of two or more
separate bodies or things" Can . consolidated
sense whatever. be den"minated "unloug'' Does
not The very word itself imply, or "a t'raiai and
inevitably league, alliance or partnership, 81
two or more parties, Is IL not. therefore, papa
bic contradiction IN those, la whose daily utter
ance this cherished and adored word exists and
II res 10 declare that form of government IL mol
in3 any sense Whatever = compact OF "copart
nershp, league or alliance
z. What Ii the sole Specification OF the term
"federai." which Is, equally with the word
"union." the original and universal epifhet be
slowed upon. aud spTertaiuing 10 oIn general GO
vsrnmeni. 10 distng uiSh IL from the governments
Of the States, Does not this title denomination
In which both ancient and modern feder siists have
50 much delighted, and which i daily used by the
itte9igerscsr, simply mean (being derived from the
Latin f0dtis, q hague or siisnce) what apper
toms 10 a covenant. league, or contract between
parties Can the ingenuity OF the wings oscoyeI
or invent any other possible meaning for this IA
miliar word
8. Again, what does the very title with
which our government was baptized, aud
by which i is kno~n everywhere, sisni
~ viz: THE United States" Does MOI
that epthet necessarily and inexorably signify m
= alliance, league, or uhion?' And what becomes
Of all the narrow. verbal s9phisuy Of the ~hiss ia
combining and restricting their syllogstc argument,
TO the single word people" 10 the preamble Of the
constitution instead OF Interpreting the entire sitis
or ex yression used in that preamble, when II de
| do ordain, &c, What say. becomes Of all the
narrow. single word sophistry, when We honestl,
aud fairly cite The entire sentence and give II ~
! only true, just and rational meaniogg Il aot The
| expression, I'VE, the people OF the Uni ed ) Atcs,
explicitly used IN place of I've the people o
| North America" NJ II undoubtedly would have
been expressed II the wing doctrine 0. consoIid
atcd governm mt we're correct Again, (to
read, I'VE. the people Of the United
States, do ordain and ESTABLISH this con.
stitution Tor the United States Of America Does
that language, in any sense, import that this
government was made either by or for the cot
lectve people Of United America" a. the fede-
ra,ists have ever commended, and a. the old fede-
ralist and consolidation leader in Virginia. Geo. X.
Taylor argued in these very words' Here is EN-.
ployed the clear and simple expression 'the people
Of the United States" do ordain constitution ior
the United s'atcs;' and yet the sophistical fede-
rasis and wings have the absurd eifrontery TO de.
clare that these words United states" do not
mean United rtses.n but signify single gros,
State Of North America. Did not each aud every
Of the several and separate States act indepen
IDENTITY and separately in adopting and rati'ying the
f,dotM constitution, or compact Of alliance. by
which they agreed TO establish a central agency or
government NJ Washington Aud did that in~tru.
mcni, agreement OF compact have any validity or