The Oxford intelligencer., 1860-10-24

and in pursuance Of the powers hereby. and BY |
the articles of Confederation, vested IN them, and
all treaties made and ratified under the author
ity of the United States. shall be the supreme
law Of the respective States, SO Ear forthas those
acts or treaties shall relate to the said States
their citizens and that The Judiciary of the sew
eral States shall be bound thereby in their de-
cisions, anything in the respective laws Of the
individual States to the contrary notwithstand-
ing; and that If any STATE, or any body Of men
in any State, shall oppose or prspent the carrying
into execution Of such acts or treaties, tie Fed
eral Government shau Be authorized to call
forth the posser Of the eonfsderuted States or so
much thereof as may be necessary, to enforce
and compel obedience to such acts, or an obser-
vance of such treaties" Madison Papers, p.
$685. 1t is unnecessary that we should trace
the history Of these, and other kindred PROPOSE
tons, through the proceedings of the conven-
ton. 1t is enough that the propositions were
made, and that the Convention rejected them.
How absurd then, to claim that the general
government possesses power which is not only
not to be found in the Constitution, but which
the Convention expressly and repeatedly refused
to confer upon it The omission to grant that
power arose from no accidental oversight, nor
was it designed that it should be granted by inn
plication for Mr.. Madison, in speech made by
him shortly before the close of the Convention,
clearly indicates the deliberate purpose of their
action on this point. "He called for single in
stance in which the general government was not
to operate on the people individually. The
praetiea6any or making laios, Nth coereire
sanctions, fer the States, as political bodies,
seas exploded on aUhands." Madison Papers,
p. 1902 No member of the Convention then
presumed to question the accuracy of this state.
ment of Mr.. Madison, but it was reserved for
men of another day, who shut their eyes to the
well authenticated facts Of history, to make the
brilliant discovery that the trainers of the Con-
stitution actually did thing. which, when il
was OVER and over again presented to their con.
sideration and urged upon their acceptance, they
steadfastly and constantly refused to do
tbs prevalent opinion among the uniform
ed, that there is something peculiarly mystic
r'ous, and almost ine6mprehensible, in those
principles which lie at determination Of our gov.
ernmental system and political charlatans arc
not slow to take advantage of this erroneous
opinion, for the purpose of confusing, and there
| by misleading, those who entertain it. There
is, however, nothing more of mystery connected
with questions of compact between States, than
with similar questions occurring between indi-
viduals The same simple and elementary prin-
ciples ofjustice and common sense are alike and
equally applicable in both cases. If several
parents unite in an agreement to employ a
schoolmaster to instruct their children, and COM
NIT to him authority to compel the obedience OF
his pupils to the regulations Of his school, there
is no man who would uphold the teacher in a
denial that the parents retained any further au-
thority over their children than such as he might
think proper TO concede to them; while, if he
should undertake personal castgaton both Of
the child and parent, because the latter took his
child from school and released him from the
teachers authority, his pretensions would berc-
garded as savoring of actual insanity. So, If
number of planters should agree to employ an
agent to manage certain affairs connected with
their individual plantations, no man would doubt
the right of any one of them to revoke the
agents authority, at any moment and resume
his personal control of his plantation and if the
agent, in such case, should threaten TO fog all
the slaves on the plantation unless they obeyed
him Instead Of their master, and to fog the mas
ter himself If he did not abandon his right to
control his own property he would simply make
himself the laughing-stocls of all who knew the
circumstances. The same principle, applied to
a compact between States, will solve every ap-
parent difficulty that may present itself There
is this difference, however, between States and
individuals: If the latter wrongfully refuse to
comply with their engagements, the law, to
which they are subject, will either enforce a
compliance, or compel them to compensate the
other party in damages; whereas, in the case of
a State, which is not subject to any superior au-
thority, she must in the very nature of things,
be herself the final judge of the question, wheth-
er or not she is bound to comply with an engage
ment into which she has entered, and of the in
fraction Of which, by other parties thereto, she
conceives that she may legitimately complain.
If she may rightfully be coerccd, under the terms
of her compact, she is no more sovereign State
than her citizens are sovereign individuals. "