The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1865-11-19
inherent in the Federal system. That

i1Herent - IN the Federal system. That
the States were originally, each of
! them, free, sovereign. and indepen-
dent power, is very certain, rs they
were separately acknowledged by this
| country ia these terms. That their
union under the title of the United
States did not destroy the sovereignty
existing separately in each is also Ger
tam, as 1t is declared in the first Con-
stitution: 'Each State retains it's
sovereignty, freedom, and indepen-
dence." That each State is sovereign
under the present Constitution is also
certain, rs it has been so decided on
several occasions by the Supreme
Court, decision from which there is
no appeal. Now, if sovereign State
cannot wlthd raw from its union With
other States, there must be some
power which prevents it-a power
over 1t, md superior to it's own will.
1t so, its condition is that of infe-
rlorlty or subjcction to that higher
power, and therefore cannot be soye-
reign. No such power is known to
the Constitution, for the States are
all co-equal; and, what is popularly
termed "the Government, is simply
the common administration, or Fed
cral agent. to whom certain limited
powers we're delegated" by the States.
The recipient of delegated power
cannot be superior in authority to
those OF whom it is the delegate.
This would be to put the agent above
the principle, or the servant above
the master; and where 4 SOVEREIGN
State delegates limited powers to
an agent for certain ends, it is difficult
to sec that it cannot withdraw them
when those ends are not attained.
This right to withdraw, ssto resume
them. was asserted by Virginia when
that State became a party to the Con-
stltutlon, and it was asserted in the
solemn form of :ln act Of asscmblv-a
law OF the State. Virginia, therefore,
IN seeding from the Union, simply
exercises the right which she reserved
by law When she entered it. It may
be SAID that this law has no force be-
yond her limits; but they who ac-
cepted her adhesion to the Union
with this reserved right, solemnly
proclaimed to the world, cannot now
complain that it is exercised; and in
decd it is difficult to see how any
State could have entered into the
Federal compact without the power
of withdrawing if its terms were
broken. This was the only possible
means of redress or escape from
wrong If committed by the majority.
One OF the points of the Constitution
!ylll illustrate this. The small States
insisted that each, whatever it's size.
should have equal weight in the Sen
ate, and that this should never be
altered to the prejudice of any State
without its own consent It results
that the little strip Of soil, Delaware,
has its two members in the Senate
equally with New York, State ex-
ceeding in all respects several of the
kingdoms of Europe. And if the
whole of the other thirty-fve States
should desire it, they cannot right
fully alter this without the consent of
Delaware. But suppose they do so
with or without right, what redress
has Delaware? She could not outvote
or fight the others, and must either
submit to breach Of the compact
without redress, or retire from it,
This may explain the remarkable
statement of Rawle. '"This right
THAT of secession) must be considered
an ingredient in the original compost
ton of the General Government,
which, though not expressed, was
mutually understood That such
understanding existed with the trainers
of the Constitution, is proved by the
fact that in the early debate. of Con
gress under the existing Constitution
the threat of seeding was made more
than once, and the right to do so was
not questioned. In the Constitution
there is no principle that permits the
coercion OF a State. When suggested,
it was deliberately excluded; and if
there be nothing that can lawfully