Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-04-06

lCdcuu1 All iuCd VI q SUPREMACY Ol UdUuudf
rights or powers or interests, when founded on
something not embraced in the Constitution. is
purely visionary. No duty of .~.loyalty'' can pos
sibly be predicnted of any claim that il not
founded in the supreme law OF the land. When
il is ence ascertained what are the rights and
powers vested in the National authorities by the
| Constitution. they are perts of the supreme law,
and our '.loyalry" is due to them. When We
know what are the rights and powers reserved to
the Sts,es or the peOule-and We know that they
are the whole residue OF all possible political
rights and powers-they are equally the objects
of our loyalty" for the self-same reason.
namely. they are parts of the supreme law of the
land. loud applausel
Again: The Constitution not only contains
some political powers and the rights granted to
the Federal Government, and a reservation of all
other political powers and rights to the States of
the people; but it also embraces rights of persons
and property guaranteed to every citizen in his
individual capacity; and these are equally made,
not by implication but expressly, parts of the SUI
preme law of the land, and are therefore
equally the objects of our loyalty" All pre-
tence, therefore, of any paramount authority in
the Central Government to override these per-
sonal rights of the citizen, or to clam our 'loyal-
ty" in disregard of these coordinate parts of the
supreme law, is a perversion of the very idea of
American loyalty. lCheers. As well might
the citizen claim, because the Constitution has
made his personal rights part of the supreme law,
that therefore the loyalty of his ~neighbor is due
to him alone, as the Government can claim that
loyalty is due solely, or chiefly, or primarily, or
ultimately to the functions which it is appointed
to perform. The rights of the Government, the
rights of the States, and the rights of individuals,
all and equally, are comprehended in the SUI
preme law of the land, and our loyalty is due to
that law, to the whole and every part of it, and
public officers are in the same sense and for the
same reason bound TO obey every got and title
of it. IGreat applause.
These positions are very plain and amiliar
truths; too familiar, perhaps, you will say, to be
treated. But in these days nothing that is true
is too fundamental or too plain to be inculcated.
The extravaganza language and ideas that are
current in the mouths of even sensible people on
? this subject of loyalty would have exceeded all
capacity of belief in any other period than this.
2 If one were to undertake TO reduce this language
and these ideas to something like adefinite moral
f proposition, it would be found that the doctrine
{ is something like this: In a time of war, when
there are great public dangers, the rights of the
{ States and of individuals must give way; and if
those who administer the Government are salts
r fed that public necessity requires them to use
powers that transcend the limits of the Constitu-
5 ton, he who does not acquiesce in their judg-
{ ment. or who questions their authority to do par
r ticular acts, is a "disloyal" citizen. Laughter.
5 This statement of the doctrine is the best that /
know how TO make; for / know not how else to
4 interpret or so apply the denunciations which we
: find in the proceedings of public meetings, in the
= columns of party newspapers, and in the common
speech and action of very many persons. l need
only point TO the utter prohibition that is at
: tempted to be placed upon all discussion of any
plan for bringing this dreadful civil war to a
e close excepting by the particular method of
{ fighting; or to tn emanner in which the terms
: TRAITOR and "secessionists" are hurled at all
q who question the policy and lawfulness of the
r methods pursued by the Government in the pros
{ ecution of the war. For myself, / do not pro-
e fess to have a definite opinion, as vet, concerning
e several of the modes in which a peace might safe
/ Iy be sought. But 1 know not what right L have,
n legally or morally, TO say that my neighbor shall
e not discuss such n question, or shall not act upon
d il at the polls, or shall be denounced as "dis-
loyal" because his opinions on these subjects diff.
e fer from mine. 1t is to me very plain that this
whole effort of a dominant party to control opin-
II ion by such means, can, under such institutions
J as ours, lead 10 but one of two results-the es-
Y t~ablishment of a despotism of a very bad kind, Oh
y the overthrow of the political power of those who
a resort to snch methods. Either the institutions
It of the country will perish, or the party which un-
dertakes to repress all freedom of discussion viii
perish. Cheers. Ihope we shall make up oul
d minds to destroy the party ana save the instltu
W tions. [Great applause. eve will do it. u
But of this hereafter.
D Let me return to this new doctrine Of "loyal
ty." which requires Us to acquiesce in silence in
the Judgment of public servants as TO what the
public ne, essity require. even to the extent oil
+ overlooking great infractions Of the Constitution
5 This doctrine entirely ignores the purpose foI
which the Constitution imposed certain stringent
limitations on the powers of the National Gov
eminent. In order 10 explain this it will be ne
cessary to descend from general reasoning &c
particular illustrations.
al The Constitution, after comforting certain vel
defined political powers upon the Federal Gov
= ernment. declares that all other political powers
a. are reserved to the States or the people: aud i
further secures to every citizen certain ~inaliena
BILE rights of person and property, which it recog
nizes as inherent in the ci'iZen forever, beyonC
all possible control of that Government. Now
in does anv one suppose that this was done without
| a serious purposef Does any man imagine thai
it was done for what is vulgularly called bun
h combe?" Do You believe that it was done with
E. mental reservation of the doctrine of public ne
h cessity Standing behind the Constitution, anC
'e ready TO strike il down from its supreme contro
Y; over us and our affairsl Let me suggest to you
nv fellow citizens, that YOU cannot study thu
r Constitution and the purposes of the great gener
re alton who made il. without seeing that the very
l. object of all this careful provision for rights thai
" were placed beyond the reach OF the Central Gov
" ernment was to- exclude forever this doctrine o
Is public necessity as a measure IF the potcers thai
E. we're conferred upon that Government. lCheers
it | use this language deliberately. / affirm thai
x when the Constitution repealed the words o
v Magma Charta, not as n statute, but as a tixet
ne provision of fundamental law, and declared thai
snO person shall he deprived of life, liberty OF
If property without due process of law"-it meant
in to IN Ike u rule for all time and all circumstances
shutting the door forever against any supposed
ID public necessity for violating the rights OF thu
citizen. In like manner, | affirm that when the
e, Constitution reserved TO the States or the people
all political powers not granted to the Federa
Government, it meant TO preclude every gr0unC
We of necessity for the assumption by that Govern
h. ment OF the powers thus withheld. tApplause
I'd In fact, the idea of a written Constitution
LIE fixed and supreme LAWS utterly irreconcilabls
with the theory that the Administration of such
b. Government can resort TO their own judgment OF
ne public necessity, and act contrary TO the supreme
rr law, and that good citizenship requires the people
a to acquiesce in that judgment. They who set ~
such "A claim for our rulers claim for theEl an en-
A. tirely irresponsible power. We are required. fol
N example, to believe that what are called '.arbi
trary arrests" are necessary, but no one explains
w to US the grounds of that necessity. No account
is rendered. We are 10 assume the existence o.
< causes of Justification. but no one tells Us what
those causes are They may remain forever
p locked in the bosoms of those who do the acts o
r which we complain. Why should American cit
: izens, filling high places of public trust. act upon
VS. such a principle as this? Can anything be more
IN degrading, more injurious to the public consci
ence Of a people, than to form a habit OF i'm
plicit h s.ief in the existence of necessities which
nobody explains, and of which ~nobodyis required