New Orleans daily crescent., 1860-12-08


3 the Federalist: ain this relation the propose
1t government cannot be deemed national one
since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerate
e objects only, and leaves to the several States tn
residuary and nviolabe sovereignty over all othe
Il subjects"
y Does not the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme
l. Court throughout acknowledge and recognize tn
|, principle Of the General Government being
It league or union of sovereign States Is not thi
il the peryading doctrine of that entire, most abl
and unanswerable argument of the eminent Chic
+ Justice of that great and learned tribunal?
Does not Mr.. Bell, the Intelligencer's chosen ant
greatly applauded 'tUnon'' candidate for the Pres
. dency, use the following language in one of hi
speeches in the United States Senate in lS32 The
. question is not whether the States shall continue
united according to the letter Of the covenant by
which they are bound together. 1t is whether they
shah continue to be practically and efficiently co
operative in carrying out the great ends of the as
} sociation Whether mutual trust and confidence
shall continue to animate and encourage mutual
efforts in promoting and multiplying common bene
fits; or whether mutual hatred and distrust shall
step in to check all progress, to distract and con
found all joint endeavors for the common welfare
and in fine, to entail upon the country all the evils
of endless discord. That is the question; and
where you present that issue to me & say give me
separation, give me disunion, give me anything in
preference to q Union sustained only by power, by
Constitutional and legal ties, without reciprocal
trust and confidence. If future career is to be
one of eternal discord, of angry elimination and
recrimination, give me rather separation, with all
things. on continuance of which Mr.. Bell pledged
himself to go for separation, not only continued,
Il but increased in yrulenee tenfolds Does not this
4 pledge compel him to 60 for a separation and
= upon far sIighter grounds than even Yancey has
ever announced. viz: upon the mere ground OF
elimination and recriminati0n?
Again, in the year 1858, in the same United
Il States Senate does not this cherished and honored
ssUnioni candidate of the Intelligencer make this
declarations:
ttWhen the North shall, by any deliberate act,
deprive the South Of any fair and just and equal
4 participation in the benefits of the Union--if the
powerful North shall deliberately announce to the
South, 'Yon shall have no more slave States
4 would afford pretext with which the South might,
/ with some reason and some assurances of the ap
proval of the civilized world and Of posterity, seek
to dissolve the Union.'
Have not both the above contingencies arisen ?
Have not the Republican party a announced to the
South, y in their platform, that you shall have no
\ more slave States2 and has not their greatest
leader Mr.. Seward, announced that the q election
of Lincoln is the downfall Of slavery2' Is not,
therefore, the specially chosen and eulogsed can
didate Of the fntelligencer in honor bound to re-
| deem his pledges and to go for this promised
| separation and disunions
/ H. IN reply to the position assumed by the
Inteliigeaeer, that treason can be committed by
one more of these sovereign States, is it not
sufficient to inquire into the true definition Of the
word +" treasonT' Is it not (as laid down BY all
our legal authorities, well as lexicographers)
| the g breach Of allegiance from a subject, or
citizen, to a sovereign and not the act of SOW
ereign State breaking league, union or covenant
of government (or agency empowered to perform
certain duties in conducting war and commerce
| Again, what else does the word allegiance signify
but the duty of citizen, or subject to sovereign?
And where else does all sovereignty, in this coun-
| try, reside, but in the people of each sovereign
/ State How, therefore. can there be any other
| allegiance due by our citizens except to their own
| State And is it not contounding of all correct
ideas and correct language to speak Of allegiance,
instead of obedience to governments, laws, or
1 constitutions? Does not the Federal Constitution
itself declare that this Constitution and the laws
made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme
law of the land?n How then can allegiance be
due to a law, power of attorney, constitution or
government? And is it not palpable contradic-
ton in terms sheer soecism, er Vi te1nsili, =
and violation of all legitimate language, to de-
clare that sovereign creator can commit treason
towards its creature, agency? Has not the con-
trary doctrine been laid down by every legal
authority +? and has not the Intelligencer's dis
tinguished friend, Stephen A. Douglas, just de-
clared at New York that a sovereign State can
not commit treason?" and for this reason it was
Gas the debates eyince) that Luther Martins pro-
position was so summariy rejected in forming the
Constitution, as being in itself wholly absurd and
unnecessary to declare that sovereign State cam
not commit treason And in regard to authority |
of Luther Martin, SO trumphantly quoted by the |
Intelligencer, to prove that sovereign State can
commit treason, it is remarkable fact that the |
very opposite conclusion was at that time drawn |
in the convention and elsewhere, and has ever
since been drawn from his proposed amendment |
to the Constitution, (which was laid on the table
by the convention) vz that so far as it referred |
to the citizens OF State it was wholly superfuous
as one denied that citizen can commit treason, /
and the Constitution had already provided for that
case, in declaring that q treason against the United
States shall consist only in evying war (by such
citizens of courss) 'sagainst them {not it, or the
government) or in adhering to their enemies, or
giving them aid comfort y and as equally
superfiuous and nugatory if applied to a sovereign
State, intelligent and wenformed states
eOntGDQad n pOuld M
init treason. And to prove that Luther Martin
only intended his amendment to refer to the
citizens of State, we quote his own words upon
this subject: To save the citizens of State from
this dsagreeable dilemma, (as to what he regarded
q divided allegiance) and to secure them from
being punishable as traitors to the United States,
when acting in obedience to the authority of their
own State, / wished to obtain, as an amendment
to the Sd section Of that article, the following
clause -
Could it be denominated treason if the majority,
say threefourths of the States, should choose
to withdraw from the Union, and should leave one
fourth remaining in the league alliance as con-
stituting the sole parties to this Federal Govern
ment? Could, then, that Government, or agency
of one-fourth, employ force against the three
fourths who had withdrawn to compel them to
return?
13. Can it be reasonably contended that this
Federal Government Cor general agency possesses
or holds in fee simple one single attribute of SOW
ereignty, when the precise term used in the instru-
ment, or power of attorney, from which it derives
all its powers is the word " delegate?a = And what
does this word signify but .sto entrustn z to "com-
nit power to an attorney or agent?n 2 And who
ever heard of power of attorney that was not re-
voeable, unless it be expressly so declared?
Whereas, this Constitution or power of attorney +
from the States is, beyond all eontravention, en-
tirey revocable by the States {as every impartial
lawyer must acknowledge and it expressly de-
clares, in one of its most important provisions,
that "ah powers not herein expressly delegated
are reserved to the States or the people,
Its not, therefore, evident from the very terms
employed, that the sovereign States which formed
this Federal Constitution did not give up one
single particle of sovereignty, but merely delegated
or entrusted to their agents attorneys certain
limited and reyoeable powers to be used for the
benefit of those States, and for no other purposes
H. In reply to the position taken by the Intelfi-
gencer, that the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions
of 9s and 99 merely intended that the States should
" protest ~ against even the most tyranncal des-
potic and oppressive usurpatons by the general
agency at Washington, is it not perfectly obvious
that such q construction is too absurd to bear the
touch of reason for single instant when applied
to such language as Madisons in the Virginia reso-
lutions, viz: . In case of deliberate, papable,
and dangerous exercise of powers not granted by
said compact, the States who the parties there
to have the right, and are in duty bound to inter-
pose for arrestng the progress of the evil and main
tanning within their respective limits the authorities,
rights aud liberties appertaining to them and that
they alone are TO Judge of the mode and measure
of redress. ~ and apain in the kenfucly resoiu- |