The Oxford intelligencer., 1861-01-30


that dass Of persons who admit the right Of
State 10 secede for su6fcispt cause but by i'm
plication. at least deny the existence of the
right without such cause. This brought up the
question Who is to Judge, in case Of secession,
Of the sufficieney Of the cause (which / re-
served for Investigation in this article.
have already shown in my former articles
that the Constitution of the United States was
compact between sovereign States, and the Fed
eral Government the agent appointed in that
compact to carry out its purposes. Ii follows
inevitably, that no State has right to deter
mine for another, whether or not the compact
has been broken, or the rights of the latter in
fiinged, the States being all co-equals. No one
would be simple enough TO contend for such
proposition no matter in what light he viewed
the Constitution. Its bare mention shows its
naked absurdity. If such a right. existed, it
devolyes upon the advocate of the doctrine to
show which State possessed the right of judging
Of the grievances of another. Was it New
York, or Virginia, or Rhode Island, or Della
ware, If one could judge Of another's rights,
they were not equal sovereignties. But am
wasting paper in discussing this proposition, for
am persuaded that no one is ignorant enough
to entertain it.
The next inquiry is, Does this right exist in
ths Federal Government As the original SOW
ereignty is in the several States, upon which The
Federal Government was mere superstructure,
and from which it derived all its authority, the
Constitution possessed not only the nature Of a
compact but also Gas has been previously stated
that of letter Of attorney, creating the relation
Of principal and agent between the former and
the latter II results as a necessary conclusion,
that the right to determine when the agent has
exceeded or perverted his powers, rests not with
the agent, but with the principal. To suppose
an anomaly in the laws regulating the rights of
principal and agent, never before heard Of
Such right could not be for moment admit
ted, unless the instrument appointing the agent
should declare II in the most direct and explicit
terms And even in that case, | hold such
provision to be imperative and void; for the
power to appoint an agent by letter Of attorney
or otherwise involves the power to revoke the
appointment And whenever the deed Of ap-
pointment is revoked, it necessarily revokes ev-
cry clause in that deed, including the one giving
the agent the right to judge whether or not he
has exceeded or perverted his powers And
what would this be, when done for these causes,
but the principal asserting his own right to
.oI tho ~.
authority for not conforming his views on the
subject with his principals The States then,
being original sovercignties, and there being no
consolidation of them into one body polite, and
the Federal Government being their creature,
authorized to exercise certain delegated powers
for their general welfare i'm other words, the
States being the principals, and the Federal
Government the agent the right to judge wheth-
err this agent has abused his trust necessari-
ly resides with the States. Indeed, this is one
of those absolute rights Of sovereignty. which
s'the last to be surrendered under any circum-
stances; for no nation can surrenderit to anoth-
or, without making at the same time an absolute
and unconditional surrender of all other rights
She would then be entirely at the others mercy,
having no rights except such as that others in
terested judgment might award to her, which
all history proves would be sufficiently meagre
to arouse the complaints of the most enslaved
people OIL earth The nations that were reduced
to Roman provinces, and even the allies of the
Roman people in some instances, will illustrate
this remark, And for modern example, look
at Ireland She, indeed, may be said still to pos
sess the right to judge of her grievances but not
the power to enforce redress of them.
When, indeed, a nation surrendcrs this right
she surrenders with it her very nationality for
the one cannot exist without the other, because
people cannot be said to possess nationality,
when it has no right to determine in what that
nationality consists, nor to judge when its pre-
negatives are assaed or usurped Then to have
surrendered this right to the Federal Govern
ment, would have been national suicide on the
part of the States. No other act would have
been necessary to consolidate the latter, and con-
vert the former into great central power, pos
sessing abolute and unlimited sovereignty. For,
being the sole judge in all cases of the extent of
its own powers, and Of the justice and expedi-
ency of their exercise, he has read history to
little purpose who docs not know, that it would
be continually making encroachments upon the
rights, and usurpations of the powers, of the
States and at the same time declaring its judg-
ment that such Entertainments and usurpations
were within the legitimate scope and proper ex-
ercise Of its own powers, In this way the
States would have been swallowed up as rapidly
as the Lilliputians we're gulpcd down by the
giant until nothing would have been left, but
the huge. monster Of consolidation stalking
through Che land, armed with the sword of alb
solute sovereignty, and covered with the impen-
etrable mail of sefjudgment The States
would, have been completely enslased, and the
Federal Government as complete and irresponsi-
bic despot as the Car of Russia, or his African
Highness, the King Of Dahomy. Did the Revolu.
tionary Fathers who framed the Constitution,
which they designed and regarded as the ma
tured fruit of the Declaration Of Independence,
mot destroying, but forming more perfect
confederation between those colonies which they
had rendered free and independent States, y
did they in that Constitution give to the Federal
Government such power, such right? In
If LAM colonial I,fetorv and The hiefo-