Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-04-23

whole cannot be repudiatsd by without mhcting
wrong-sometmes vital wrong-upon the rest
In respect to common treaty between two nations j,
may be said in sense, that either party has right
to declare that the treaty has been violated by the other
but the other has equal right to deny the nfrachon
Ii they cannot accommodate matters the only resort for
settlement of the difference is to war To retire from
treaty is to give lawful for There such
thing known peaceable right to secede from treaty
unless the treaty contains express stipulation to that
effect Such right results from the single fact Of
the absolute sovereignty of the parties.
What foundation them there for the assertion that in
league this sovereignty of the parties gives each this
right
The cd Confederation which existed before the present
Constitution was, strictly league OF States 1t did not
pretend to be nation Yet nothing more abhorrent
to the ideas of the who formed and acted under that
Confederation than this notion OF right existing IN any
member to secede from IT, or in any to alter its
terms but by the unanimous consent of all the members
The and force of the Confederate obligations this
point are well defined by Luther Martin in his address to
the Legislature of Maryland his return from the Con-
venton which formed the Constitution.
Speaking of the old Confederation, he says:
That in forming original Federal Government every
member of that Government that 49, each State express
y consented to IT. that 1t part OF the compact made
and entered into in the most solemn manner that there
should be dissolution alteration OF that Federal Coz
ernem ,ohoa the consent Of epery state the members Of
md parties TO the original compact that therefore no al
iteration could be madeby the consent of part OF these
States or by the consent of the inhabitants Of part OF
these States which could either release the States so con-
sentng from the obligation they under to the other
States which could in any manner become obligatory
upon those States that should not ray such alterations
This argument was used by Mr.. Martin in support of
his opposition to the mode proposed by the Convention for
the ratification Of the Constitution by the concurrence Of
States and being used simply in the way Of argu
ment appeal to the received opinion OF that day In
reference to the old Conederation-an opinion which
apart from his own high authority clearly correct
Now it must be observed that the Articles of Con-
federation silent the Constitution the subject
OF secession Mr. Martins argument is deduction from
the nature of the compact treaty Of Confederation that
although the States recognised in that compact as
absolute soveregntes they could dissolve alter the
Government without the unanimous consent of the mem
bers in the league Where the right of secession II
this view is sound one7 The whole of Mr.. Martins adj
dress which elaborate discussion the principles of
the Constitution worthy of study in reference to this
question. He harsh critic upon the abors Of the
Convention; many defects in the Constitution which
time has proved to be imaginary made many prophecies
of its magn influence upon the country which have never
been fulfilled; complained of its nationality pregnant
with mischief to the States, and went far to
say, considered the system proposed to be the most
complete most abect system of slavery that the wit of
devised under the pretence of forming Govern
men of free Staes yet with all these evil porents loom
ing upon his disturbed vision, it occurred to him
that there lodged this system power which could
in SILVER it into atoms, and thus disspae all
these apprehensons of the terrible bondage to which he
fancied these free States doomed Indeed it is
impossible read that address without percevng every
page that the idea of secession entered into his
thoughts and had been entertained by the of
that day 1t would have at dspeed all his fears and
answered half the objections he anxousy urged against
the work Of his compatrots.
The student of history will find many testimonies in
the records of nitiatory era in addition to this of Mr.
Martin, which will bs equally conclusive to him
that who had any part in the fabrication Of the
Constitution any portion of the public who anxiousy
watched the progress of that work. ntmated idea
that right to withdraw from the Union existed either by
inference grant privilege left to conferred upon
the respective States Upon that point the silence
universal and pregnant with meaning 1t very evident
that generation regarded the compact designed to be
perpetual They would not agree, may be in
Mr.. Madsons letter TO member of the New York Con-
venton to allow State to make conditional ratification,
by way of experimental probation Of the Constitution, be-
fore final acceptance Of it 1t to be perpetual they
must take it not at ALL is the import Of his direction
We have difficulty in percevng that the founders in
terpreted the ratification rrevocabe surrender by
each State Of all the power required to be surrendered
for the benefit And the Government was the
compound result Of State acton and popular action the
surrender Of power by The State act which was
confirmed and rendered douby rrevocabe by the concur
rent vote of the people Of the whole of the States, who
third party binding themselves aud their States
to the compact through their several State Conventions
Out of this joint action between States and people grew
NATION, in which sklfuy and beautifully combined
two soyeregnes the the complement OF the other
State sovereignty supreme in the state sphere neither
clashng with the other but both together masking up the
whole OF sovereignty which is essential to complete
nation The States clean shorn of every yestge of
sovereignty in the circle allotted to the National Govern
ment and the National Government was in like manner
shorn of every vestge Of sovereignty the circle appro
prated to the State government They compliments
to each other aud the National Government has just
much right to abrogate the State power and release itself
from it's obligations to the States the States lave to abb
rogate the national power and release themselves from their
obligations to the nation.
This view Of the mutual relations between the two
thortes distinctly defines national rights and State rights,
which are equally clear equally sacred aud equally guarded
against encroachment from each other.
1t has not been my purpose to comment at large upon
these principles in Constitution, gather up the
numerous demonstrations of III which our early history