The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1865-10-28

the United States says: There must be
an ultimate arbiter somewhere True,
there must; but does that prove it to be
either party I? The ultimate arbiter is the
people of the Union, assembled by their
deputies in convention, at the call of Con-
gress, or of two-thirds of the States Let
them decide to which they mean to give
an authority claimed by two of their or
gans. And it has been the peculiar wis
dom and felicity of our Constitution, to
have provided peaceable appeal, where
that of other nations is at once by force.
Il Jefferson works, Z, 297-9S.
At much later day Mr. Madison says
1.-THE Constitution was formed, not by
the Governments of the component States,
as the Federal Government for which it
was substituted was formed Nor was it
formed by majority of the people of the
United States, as a single community, in
the manner OF consolidated Government.
% 1t was formed by the States, that is,
by the people of each of the States, act
ing in their highest sovereign capacity,
and formed consequently by the same an-
;;hority which formed the State Constitu-
tions. = = 1t divides the supreme
power of government between the Gov
ernment of the United States and the
Governments of the individual States, as
is stamped on the face of the instrument. J"
Again, in another place [Federalist, No.
80, he profoundly says:
sOn the one hand, the Constitution is
to be founded on the assent and ratifca-
tion of the American people given by
deputies elected for the special purpose !;
but on the other, that this assent and rat
ifcation is to be given by the people, not
as individuals composing one entire ma
ton, but as composing the distinct and
States to which they respectively
belong. 1t is TO be the assent and ratif-
cation of the several States derived from
the supreme authority of the people them
selves. Each State ratifyins
the Constitution, is c6ltstEored as sorcr.
eign body, indepe4,de4t'ot' GRothers, and
only to be bound by its own voluntary act. J"
Leaving for moment these command
ing and capable writer's. let us turn eN the
Judiciary for theis testimony on the sub
ject. In the City Of New York rs Milne,
II Pet, I32, l37, the Court says
'sNow we hold that both the end and
the means here used, are within the COM
potency of the States. since portion only
of their powers were surrendered to the
Federal Government. Let US see what
powers arg left with the States. The
Federalist, in the 45th nupber, speaking
on the subject, says: The powers reserv-
ed to the several States will extend to al
the objects which. in the ordinary course
of affairs concern the lives. liberty and
property of the people: and the internal
order, improvement and prosperity of the
State Frem this it appears
that whilst a. State is acting withlA~the
legitimate scope of its powers askthe
end to be obtained, it may use wHAtever
means, being appropriate to the end. it
may think fit; although they may be tha
same, or so nearly the same, as scareefs
to be distinguishable from those adopted
by Congress acting under different pow
er, subject only, say the Court, to the
limitation, that in the event of collisi6A
the law of the State must yield 10 tlAI1lw
of Congress. The Court must be 6s4er-
stood, of course, as meaniH aw of
Congress upon subject vic power" "
In the case of McIlxaiA rs .Boxe, 4
craneh, 2l2, 2l5, the .eodrt saY
This opiniVnysis pradicatJd upon a
principle whiclffs believed to be undenia-
bic, that the several States which COM
pose this Union, so far at least as regards
their municipal regulations, became set
tied from the time they declared them
selves independent, to all the rights and
powers of sovereign States, and that they
did not derive them from concessions made
by the British King. The treaty of peace
contains recognition of their indepen-
depee, not grant of it. From hence it
results, that the laws of the several State
were the laws of sovereign
States, and as such were obligatory upon
the people of such State, from the time
they we're enacted. a contra
ry doctrine is not only inconsistent with
the sovereignties of the States, anterior
to, and independent of, the treaty, but its
adoption might be produc-
tive of more mischief than it is possible
for us to foresee."
In Houston as Moore, 5 Wheat, 4S,
the Court say:
The Sovereignty of a State in the ex-
ercise of its legislation is not to be i'm
paired, unless it be clear that it has trans
cended its legitimate authority; nor ought
any power to be sought, much less to be
adjudged, in favor of the United States,
unless it be clearly within the reach of its
charter Sitting here, we
are not at liberty to add one jot of power
TO the National Government beyond what
the people have granted by the Constitu-
ton; and on the other hand, we are bound
10 support the Constitution as it stands,
md to give fair and rational scope to all
The powers which 1t clearly contains"
In Martin rs. Hunter, l Wheat, 322,
the Court say:
1T is perfectly clear that the sovereign
powers vested in the State Governments
by their respective Constitutions, remain
and uLimpaired, except so far
as they were granted to the Government
Of the United State. These deductions
do not rest upon general reasoning, plain
and obvious as they seem to be. They
have been positively recognized by one of
the Articles in the Amendments to the
Constitution, which DECLARES that the pow
ers not delegated to the United States byI
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States re-
spectiEely, or to the people. e., Of the
States.
In Sturgis rs. Crow4inshield, 4 Wheat,
l91, Chief Justice Marshall says:
g It must be recollected that, previous
e. tln en..,,,at;nr, nc The ,,e,u Constitution