Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-04-12
THE PRINCIPLE AT ISSUE.

journals Of public opinion are exercised
with fear that it may lead to a conflict which
shall shake again the pillars of the Govern
ment, not yet recovered from their displace-
ment by the late civil war, it is proper that
the popular mind should be directed TO a
consideration Of the vital question at issue.
1t can be properly stated that the mat
ter now on trial is the relation, under the
Constitution, which the States hold to the
Federal Government. From the date Of
the adoption Of the Constitution there have
been variant opinions upon this subject, and
parties have mustered, and prevailed or
failed, according TO circumstances, under
the two great theories. A class of great po-
litical thinkers have contended that the pro-
visions Of the Constitution gave the General
Government a great scope of powers over
all subjects which governments are erected
for; another equally great have contended
that one of the chief purposes of written
chart of organic law was the limitation Of
the powers of the General Government TO
certain specified Objects and that the great
mass Of governmental power was reserved
TO the several States. Incidental causes and
questions Of local interest have, from time
10 time, made the leaders and the followers
Of either set Of opinions rush TO extremes.
The protection of an institution peculiar to
one section Of the country led to an extra
VACANT assertion Of the doctrine Of State
sovereignty. 1t received its corrective in
the result Of a terrible civil war, and we
think it safe to predict that a long period
will elapse before it will ever be reasserted
to the same extent But in overcoming the
centrifugal force of this doctrine, a danger
Gus centripetal tendency has been set up,
which if not checked, will lead to results as
inimical to peace and the safety of
the Government under the Constitu-
ton as did the doctrine Of abso-
lutte State sovereignty. The question
now is, shall the States nave and enjoy their
true and constitutional powers, or shall the
General Government absorb and assume
sovereignty over all subjects. The Freed
mems Bureau bill, the Civil Rights bill, and
the drift and object of the many amend
ments to the Constitution which have been
presented to Congress, are parts of this great
centripetal and consolidating movement. A
majority Of both Houses of Congress seem
to look in this direction. The President
having opposed in 1861, the one extreme,
to-day equally opposes the other. Neither
are right. The Constitution so declares, and
the President proposes to make good its
declarations.
No man has lived under the Government
who has given the subject more thought, or
brought TO them the powers Of clearer in
tellect than THOMAS JEFFERSON, and as the
author of the Declaration of Independence,
copious writer on systems Of government,
and for eight years the chief administrator
of this system, he holds an historical atti-
tude which entities his deliberate opinions
delivered from the retirement of Monticello
TO great weight with all parties at the present
day.
In the following extracts from his cores
pondence which we take from the New
York World of the 18th, it will be seen that
President JOHNSON in his present course, is
adhering to the landmarks established by
the most philosophic statesman of the
earlier age of the Republic:
In letter to Major John Cartwright, an En-
glishman, June ), 1924, Mr.. Jefferson said: With
respect To our State and Federal Governments,
do not think their relations correctly UNDERSTOOD
by foreigners. They generally suppose the Tor
mer subordinate 10 the latter. But tins Is not the
case They are coordinate Department. OF one
single and integral whole. To the state Govern
ments are reserved all legislation and admlnlstra-
ton in affairs that concern their own citizens
only; and to tho Federal Government Is gwen
whatever concerns foreigners or citizens OF other
States: these functions alone being made federal.
The one ~ the domestic the other the foreign branch
OF The saBtc Government. neither having the con
troll of the other. but with its own department
There one or two exceptions only TO TINS par
To Judge johnson, June r. 1922 Jefferson
wrote: have been blamed for saying, that
prevalence of the doctrine of consolidation would
| one day call for reformation or rcDolUt'0H.
| answer by asking II a single state OF the Union
| would have agreed 10 the Constitution, had II
given all powers 10 the General Government
| If the whole opposition TO 1t nd not proceed
from the Jealousy and fear OF every STATE, OF pc
ing subjected TO the other States IN matters
| merely its own And Is there aay reason TO be-
| heye the States more disposed now than then
to acquiesce in this general surrender OF all their
| rights and powers 10 consolidated government
| one and undiyidedP" Further on IN the same
| letter, which is quite long and very argumenta-
| tive Jefferson says; 3" 1t may be impractlcable to
| Law down any general formula of, words which
shall decide at once, and with precision, IN every
| case this limit of jurisdiction. But there are
| two canOns which will guide us safely IN most
| of the eases lst The capital and leading object
ofthe CoasiituioH tods TO tedpe tcnh Fhe Mates q"
authorities which respected Their o'cn citizens o'D
he uafgI Mat Hgsg
| trhich respected citiEeas Of foreign or other
| States: TO make us several as 10 our
selves, but to all others In the latter case
then. constructions should lean TO the general Ju
rsdiction If the words will bear II and IN taVor
| of the States in the former, If possible TO be SO
| construed. And indeed between citizens ana cit
| izens of the same State, and under their own
laws, know of but single case IN when Ju-
risdiction is given to the general Government
| That is when anything but gold OF silver is made
lawful tender or the obligation of contracts is
| any otherwise impaired. The separate iegisla-
| lures had so often abused that power. that the
citizens themselves chose TO trust II TO the gener
| al rather than 60 their own separate authorities.
| ID On every question of construction, carry our
| selves back 20 the time when the Constitution was
adopted recollect the spirit manifested IN the de-
| bates and instead of trying what meaning may
be squeezed out Of the text, or invented against
it. conform to the probable one ,n when d II was
| passed" Again, in the same letter: Gan II be
! believed that under the jealousles prevailing
| against the Government, az the adoption OF the
| Constitution the States meant TO surrender the
=
duties and restraining vice. WITHIN lhelr own Ter
| ritory2" -,
| wrote: An abstinence, too, from thls act OF
| power. would remove the Jealousy excited by the
| undertaking Of Congress 70 regutde THE coRdHion
| Of the different descriptions 0f nlsn composing a
State 7hs certainly The erclus're Ttfhf Of eperV
State lrhich nothing an the CoRs'tutton hds taken
from, them and gireH TO the General Government.
! Gould Congress, for example, say that the non
freem en- of Connecticut should be freemen, or that
that they shall not omiErste into any other
| State2' ..,, ..r,
| To Robert J. Garnett February Il. lS24l: The
| best key for the solution Of questions OF power
| between our Governments is the fact that epeTI
foreign aud federal potrer - gwen 20 the federgt
(nperHs,cnt aud 20 the lSdtes every potrer purely
| domestic | recollect but one instance of control
vested in the Federal over tho State authorities
In a matter purely domestic, which Is that OF me-
tallic tenders. The Federal ", truth, oar FOR
ciga Goreras,eni srhich department alone - taken
from the s0ccretgHfv Of the separate Nates.
THE NEW LOAN BILL.
l.. . l,s,l Loaf