The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-03-24

TIKI STATES HOLD NO RESERVED POWERS.
But perhaps Will DO satd. u often sad of Thorn new
dat the State government had III power hAs was not for
hidden 70 them But this only or those bald and
gar:pg fAsshssds under Of which, 70 day,
corrupt and yrAnnic legsaaers enact and the ssrve
and corrupt courts who made dependent upon Them
sustain vast Of unconstitutional legislation, dostruc
tive Of mems natural rights Probably half the State egs
ation uader which live d Of this character and has
other authority than the prstence that the govsnmenf
has all power except what prohibited 70 t. The false
hood Of the doctrine apparent the moment II Is cons
dered that governments derive ali their authority
nom tho grants OF the people or necessity, therefore,
instead Of their having all authority except what for
hidden, they have except what Ia granted
Everybody admits that this Is the true doctrine in
regard 70 The United States governmsat and Is equally
true H thu State governnents, and for tho
son. The United States constitution (amcndnent 10y
does indeed specially provide that The United States gov
eminent Ahal have powers except what arc delegated
to H. But thn amendment was inserted only ~ special
guard against usurpatoa Tho government would have
had no additional powers n this amendment had been
emitted. Tho smpls fact that al govsrnmsats powers
delegated To BY the people proves tn a have
no powers except what are delegated And this princ
pie % true Of The STATE governments ~ IL u Of the
uonal one; although that almost wholly dire-
gArded in pracuoe.s
SLAVE STATUTES UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The State governments In existence In 1889 purported
to be established BY the people, and either declared
must be presumed TO have been established for the
maintenance Of justice the preservation OF liberty and
the protection Of their natural rights Andhose govern
mfnts consequently had constitutional authority what
Inconsistent with these ends uness particular
powers Of that kind explicitly granted 70 them No
power 10 establish sustain slavery granted 70 any
Of them. ALI the slave statutes therefore, that In
existence In the States at the adoption Of tho United
States consultation, unconstitutional and void and
the people who adopted the constitution Of the United
States must be presumed 10 have known this fact and
acted upon IT, because everybody Is presumed TO know
the law The constitution Of tho United States therefore,
can be presumed to have made exceptions favor Of
tho slavery then existing In the Safest
THE CONSTITUTION ABoLIsHEs SLAVERY.
But suppose, for the sake Of the argument, that
slavery had been authorized by tho State constitutions
at the time the United States constitution was adopted
the constitution Of the United States would nevertheless
have made Illegal because the United States constitution
was made 'the supreme law Of the land" "snything
In the constitution laws Of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding" II therefore annulled everything in
constituent with IT, then existing in the State constitutions
well everything that should after be added to
legal nsiuton, (supposing slavery TO have had any
legal existence to DO abolished) slavery were ncon-
sistsat with anything expressed legally implied in the
constitution.
Slavery ID Inconsistent with nearly everything that
either expressed legally implied tho constitution
All i1 express provisions are general, making exoep
ton Whatever for slavery All it, legal implications are
that the constitution and laws of the United States are for
the benefit Of the whole "peope Of the United Sates
and their postsrty.
SLAVES PART OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES.
Tho preamble expressly declares that "we the people
Of the United Statesn establish the constitution for the
purpose Of securing Justice tranquility, Defence welfare
and liberty, 10 yourselves and posterty." This
language certainly implies that all "the people" who arc
parties to the constitution join in establishing it, are to
have the benefit Of it, and Of the laws made n pursuance
Of H. The only question, then, Is, whs 'he people
Of the United States p' t
We cannot 60 Of the constitution to and who are tho
parties TO H. And there nothing In the constitution that
can limit this word "people" to make include
part only Of "the people Of the United staes The word
Ike all others must be taken In the sense most beneficial
for liberty and justice Besides II did not include al the
then "peopie Of the United ssates have legal evi
dence whatever Of single individual whom IL did in
cude. There d no legal evidence whatever IN the ooasa
oae Of SHE people, which win mot also equally prov
that the slaves part Of the people, There moth
g in the constitution that provo the Shareholders 70
have been part Of "hs people" which viii mot equally
prove the slaves to have been also part Of them And
there Ia - much authority in the constitution for excud
ing aaveholders from the descripuon-"he people Of the
United ssatesas there Is for excluding The aaves Tho
term he people Of the United States must therefore,
be held to have included al "he people Of the United
States, or can legally be held 70 have included none
But this point has been fully argued already that
need not be dwelt upon here.t
GOVERNMENT MUST SECURE TO THE PEOPLE ALL
RIGHTS.
The United States government, then, being IN theory
formed by and for the benefit Of the whole people Of
the United States the question arises, whether II have
the power Of securing TO "the people, tho benefits il in
tended for them Or whether it Ia dependent the
State nnens for permission to confer these benefits
on ''tbe peoples" This ID the whole question And II
shall prove that the general government has power Of
occurring TO the people is intended benefits il i in no
legal or reasonable sense, government
But how is to secure It's benefits 10 the peoples That
is the question.
But FIRST PERSONAL LIBERTY.
Tie first step, and indipensabl step, ooards doing u,
is TO secure TO the people their personal Liberty Without
personal liberty Of the other benefits intended BY
the constitution be secured 10 individual because
without liberty ono prosecute his other rights the
tribunals appointed to them to him. IT, therefore,
tho constitution had failed to secure the personal
liberty Of individuals, all the rest Of it, provisions
might have been defeated at the pleasure Of
the subordinate governments But liberty being
secured, all the other benefits of tho constitution
secured, because tie indiridSa, can As carry 0s
question Of his rights into ne courts Of the United States In
all rATe tie aWs consolidation Of To Un;ted &as
are jnuolred.
HAYEAs CORPUS SECURES THIS.
7ns rigM Of personal liberty, his stne qua to tie en-
joymrt Of an ether rights, Is ,ecured BY Ae is Of ho5aas
corpus This writ, has before been shown necessarily
denies the right Of property in man. and therefore bs-
rates all who restrained Of their liberty that pre-
tcnce ~ does all others that restrained grounds