Worcester daily spy., 1860-01-02

Mr.. S. S. FOSTER on THE CONSTITUTION.
Mr.. S. S. Foster sends US long communca-
ton in reply to what he calls our structures"
on his resolutions concerning the Federal Con-
stitution The STRUCTURES" in question were
nothing more than brief expression OF opln-
ion, made as a necessary accompaniment to
the resolutions which we published by request
We said nothing which calls for long reply
and were it otherwise, Mr.. Foster does not
meet nor even mention the point presented in
our criticism, and therefore does not make
such a reply as the case requires. He says;
Mr. Editor Believing Ignorance of our
rights and duties in regard to the U. S. Con-
stitution to be a serious obstacle to the triumph
of freedom m this country, am induced to
ask the favor G an insertion in your columns
of the following brief reply to your structures
npon the resolutions discussed at the City
Hall, on Tuesday evening last
In these resolutions, the following positions
are assumed
/. The people, and not the courts, are the
proper Interpreters of the constitution the
duty of the courts being merely to apply the
popular Interpretation of that instrument to
theIcases which come before them for adjudi-
cation.
n In Democracy, the Constitution is not
a 8npact, or covenant, between the different
members of the body polite, but is merely
bill of instructions from the sovereign people
to their agents, the officers in authority, for
the government of the official conduct; and
the people, or a majority of them, may at anX<
time alter amend or cancel these instSsa1gso,,s. Z.
in such rtl manner as they maS, tas.,s proper.
lnls view .,1srbge - Constitution is in en-
S,,ant@ hatt I' IN the practice of our Govern
State AMI National-from the first
of our political system, and has been
Ind to be a practical necessity of that sys-
TEN.
g. Guided by these principles of interpreta-
ton it is our right, and duty, to place the gov
ernment or such part of it as may be under our
control, at once, upon the side Of freedom and
Justice, and to apply in practice the political
theries of the Declaration of Independence.
Your principal objection to the theory of in-
depreciation presented in these resolutions is.
that it sis simply the method of revolution"
Mr. Foster is mistaken. Our principal OBJ
lection to the resolutions is that they misre-
present the character and meaning Of the fed
eral constitution, and the nature of our rea-
ton to it. We have not now, never did have,
and never ought to have, such a federal gov
ernmet as they indicate. This is what we OBJ
ject to chiefly, in his statement of the matter;
but, the communication he sends us does not
touch this point, and, therefore does not
touch what we meant by the word ''revolu-
tion" This nation is not consolidated de.
mocracy like the Commonwealth of Massachu-
sets, but a confederation Of separate states.
Therefore, it is very singular proceeding to
quote as applicable to it what may be done Gin
democracy" We repeat what we said be-
fore that the federal constitution is compact
or covenant between the states that it was
"made by the states in convention Assem-
bled;" that it was not to go into operation in
any state which refused it; that it was
to be accepted by "nine states" before
it could operate anywhere; and that it
can be amended by three-fourths of the states,
whether they do or do not contain majority
of the people, the voice of Delaware being as
potent in this matter as the voice of New
York.
We are inclined to the opinion that great
many persons, in all parts of the country, need
considerable elementary instruction on this
subject and some of them persons who ought
to be wise and well-instructed teachers of So
ciety. But we do not think that many per-
sons can fail to see how inappicable Mr.. Eos
ter's statements are to the form of our national
government and the nature Of that compact
between the states by which it was created.
If the nation were democracy, pure and sim
pie, we should have no state legislatures, such
as we have now, and the ascendancy of slave
ry, at Washington, could suppress free speech
as easily in Massachusetts as in South Caro-
lima. Such centralism could hardly fail to be.
come a terrible despotism. None of us should
desire it or favor it, for any purpose whatever.