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


Senate, does not this cherished and huuored
"Union" candidate OF the InteQigencer make this
declaration
wn-s Tho North shall. by ny deliberate eel, deprive
tie benenss Il zoe Us0o- The % sevfd Norsn sh<l
oenb. ssy ssnouoce Sodts, aYoa snaii oavs ~
wss The ssa.o @isss stsS so@s rsss% ' sad so.s
" approval civilized world add Of
pos1shy. sex 70 dissoivs tho Unisu.
Have not both the above contingencies arisen,
Have net the republican party "xunounced TO the
South. IN their platform, that you shall have no
more slaves states; and has not their greatest
leader. Mr Seward. announced that "the election
Of Lincoln h the downfall Of slsvery,'' Is not,
therefore. the specially chosen and euiogxe can.
didx'e of the inteQigersoer In honor bound TO 70.
deem his pledges and 20 60 for this promised sepa-
ration and disunious
IL 10 reply TO the position assumed BY the In.
teQigencer that treason can be committed by one
Ut these sovereign otases. Il II not sufficient
to inqu re into the true definition Of the word
"ueason,' Ii It not (as laid down by all our eRal
auth, riries. "A well exicographers) the breach
Of sii-gance from subject, or citizen, TO sove-
reign" and not the Of y sovereign state brcak-
ing league, union OF covenant Of government Tor
sgency) empowered to perform certain duties In
conducting war xnd commerce., Again, what else
doea the word allegiance Agnify but the duty Of
citizen, or subject, 70 sovereign! Aud where
but IN the people Of each sovereign sls,si How.
therefse, can there be any other allegiance due By
our citizens except 70 their own Slater And b Il
not con'ounding of Ill correct ideas and correct
Language 60 speak Ut allegiance, instead OF obedi-
ence 10 governments, laws, or constitutions, Does
the federal consultation itself declare tnat this
constitution and the laws made in pursuance there
Of shall BIZ the supreme la~ OF the landyh How
then can allegiance be due TO law, power OF at
torney, constitution, or government And Is It not
a paiDable contradiction in terms sheer soiecisa,
'ey % ferrntne.' and violation OF all legitimate
Language, 10 declare that a sovereign creator can
commit treason towaId s its creature agency, Has
rot the Contrary dortr,ue betn laid down by every
legal authority and has not the Iateligeacer's dis
ti guished friend. Stephen A. Douglas Just declared
at New Yo,k, that "a sovereign State cannot
c ,mmit tesson!"-and for this reason it was
Ia, the debates eyipce) that Luther Martins propo-
s,tion was surnmariiy rejected In forming the
cbnsti 'u,ioa as being ia itself wholly absurd and
UNI eces sary 10 decla that y sovereign safe can
not commit treason. Add in regard u the autio-
rty Of Luther Martin. unmphanty quoted by
the Ltetdseacer TO prove that sovereign state
commit treason, IL Is rem trkable tact that the
very opposite conclusion was at that time drawn in
the convention and elsewhere, and mas ever since
been drawn from his proposed amendment to
the constitution, (Which was laid on the table by
the couvtntion.) viz: that SO far as il referred TO
the citizens at d Sfate IL wholly supertuous,
AS one deni that a citizen can comm troa-
son, and the constitution had already provided for
that in declaring that "treasun against the
United Ststes shall consist only in ievyng war, (by
such cinzeus, If cnurse) against them, (aot
il or the government.)p or 10 adherilg to their
eDrIDies. or giving them aid or coaiort: aud as
equally supefhuous and nugatory IL applied to a
sovereign State. Ms no intelligent and well informed
statesman contends, that sovereign state could
commit treason. And to prove that uther Martin
only intended his auendm~n to refer to the citizens
OF u Sta q, we quote bis own words upon this sub
ject:-" To saw the citizens OF State from this
disaRreeabIe dilemma, las 10 what he regarded
divided aIleRjapce), and to secure them from
being punishable as traitors to the United States,
when acting In obedience 20 the authority of their
own state, wished Ia obtain. as AN amendment 70
the Sd tiou Of that article the following clause"
IL bsA I'D h. ma
say even three ourlhs If the States should choose
10 Wit draw from the Union, aud should leave one
fourth remaining in the league or alliance As con-
.ti'uilng the sole parties 10 this federal govern
menu Could, then. that government, or agency Of
one-iourih, employ force against the three-fcurths
VII h ID Withdrawn to compel them TO rerurn'
Is. Can 1t be reasonably coutendcd that this
federal government = general agency Possesses
holds in fee simple single attribute Of sove
reienty, ~hen the precise term used in the iustru
men or power Of attorney, fr ,m viii n u derives
does tins word signify but Ito entrust,r to icon.
init power 10 an attorney or AGENT And
VINO ever heard Of Q power Of attorney
hit was not revocabe, unless IL be expressly
declared, Whereas this constitution or power Of
attorney from the States 10, beyond all contraven
ton, entirely revocablc by the states (ss every
impartial lawyer must Acknowledge. and II ex-
pressly declares in one of its most important pro-
visions that 'all powers not herein expressly dele
gated are reserved TO the states or the people"
Is II not therefore evident, from the very terms
employed, that the sovereign States which formed
bis federal constitution did not give up one single
particle OF sovereignty, but merely delegated or
entrusted 70 their agents attorneys certain limit
cd aud revocable powers 10 be used for the benefit
OF those States, and for no other purposes what
ever
Ia. In reply to the position taken by the InteQi-
gelcsT, that the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions
OF ss and ~ merely intended that he States should
protest against even the most tyranncal, despotc
and oppressive usurpatons by the general agency
at Washington. IN il not perfectly obvious that such
q construction Is too absurd TO bear the touch
Of teason for single instant nnt,. when applied
Virginia resolutions, viz: (" In case OF de.
liberate, palp sble. and dangerous exercise Of
powers not granted by said compact. the States
who are the parties thereto have the right, aud
are in duty bound TO interpose for arresting the
progress Of the evil and maintaining within their
respective limits the Authorities rights and iiber
ties appert~ining TO them, and that they alone are
to Judge Of the mode and measure Of redress"
and again. in the kentucky resolutions, That the
principle Ind construction commended for that the
general government il the exclusive judge OF the
extent OF the powers delegated 70 II stop nothing
shnrt OF despotism; since the discretion Of those
who administer the government, And not tho con-
shtRnon, would be the measure Of their powers
that the several states who formed that instrument
being sovereign and independent, have the unques.
t'orsblc right to Judge " the infracton and that
"A notification by hosc sovercgnties OF all unau-
thorized acts done under color of that ms
strumcnt Is the righful remedy" How can
seeS s any say
simple verbsi protest. Is Il not vel, known that
South Carolina had been protesting against the
" American syrtem" Of prohibitory aud oppressive
tariffs for ten long years vain before she resoried
to J.fierson's rene ~ OF nullidcationl Has the
word notification" any other meaning than ito
aDpul render void, ahrogaie, Destroy
Is. In regard 70 the great stdmoiing block In
the way Of sill federal consolidatonists aud advo-
Gates IL force against sovereign states. that the
President Is buund to enforce tho laws or acts Of
Cobgress, whether constitutional or not, that OBJ
stacc il most easily removed by the supple sstc
ment that he Is ony bound IN respect to the cit
zens OF States within the Union; bus the very mo.
ment sovereign State chooses TO Withdraw,
neither the President por any department OF this
agency at Washington has any sort OF jurisdiction
oower ~hatever 70 act In the affairs Of q foreign
or setghboring State, any more than 10 exercise
jurisdiction Mexico or Nicaragua Or any other