Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-11-01

The G0EeNle ana EtnNo ONeEelkMNys
1.-THE Gosette undertook to show that the
trainers of the Constitution did not plant an
organic defect in it--as the Press thinks
they did--by retaining State Sovereignty
and we showed that State Sovereignty had
no existence in the Constitution, but was
expressly abolished by it"-Ga:ette.
The trainers of the Constitution did as they
were forced to do by the circumstances.
They were far from unanimous in respect to
the organic provisions that a Constitution
should contain and were therefore obliged
TO come to compromises mutual surren-
Ger of yiews-in which consistency was sac
rifced to unity. The people were no more
unanimous than their delegates; and the
latter were compelled to have regard to what
were supposed to be their opinions upon the
various questions that arose in the Conven-
ton. The States were already established
the national polity was an untried expert
ment. The former had answered well the
purposes local government; the latter might
not succeed in doing so; and therefore few
were willing to come up to the point of doing
away with the one while there was so much
uncertainty in respect to the ability of the
other.
The Constitution "expressly abolished F"
nothing. 1t is an instrument in which
powers were granted, with view to consti-
tute government more or less national: the
powers not granted were expressly reserved
to the States respectively, and to the people.
How national it is, was q question in the
Constitution. 1t was question in the State
Conventions called to ratify the Constitution;
and has been question ever since. 1t is a
national construction obtained in the South
the confederate: and so it is now.
Whether the States with the powers which
they retained are entitled to be called sover-
eign or something else, is a question of yer
bal definition. We have been in the habit oi
calling them sovereign; and of saying that
the national polity was sovereign in its
sphere, and the States sovereign in theirs. II
there is any better word to describe the
rights and powers of the States, there is no
objection to its employment; but the fact
will remain the same. The States exist Abol-
1shed or not, they are what they are; with the
ability if not the right to act as independent
political communities AN ability which they
have, none of them, ever been reluctant tc
exercise.
We do not remember that we have said
that the trainers of the Constitution planted
an organic defect in it by retaining State
sovereignty. If we did, the expression is
slightly incorrect. They did not plant; but
they failed to eradicate. The fatal principle
of State sovereignty" is not expressly con.
tanned in the Constitution, and is not ex,
pressly abolished by it. The States were
facts, pre.existiDg the Constitution. By tha
instrument they were forbidden to do Ger
tain things which were committed to tn,
charge of the National Government: but M
principle is better settled than this, that re
straining clauses recognize the existence o.
the party restrained. When it is said that
States shall not do thus and thus, the infer.
ence is that there are States, that, but for thu
prohibition, they would have the right to DE-
the acts that are forbidden; and that, il
respect to things net forbidden, their power
is original and supreme.