The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1866-10-02

Tuesday Morning, October 2. 1866.
Onr Politics Abroad.

from the European newspapers OH
the political condition of this coun-
try. The London Times, in long
article upon this subject, expresses
it's wonder that, in county where
the democratic principle prevails IN
so absolute q form, SO much heat and
acrimony can be carried into polltlcs.
It is at u loss to account for such
party designations as. conservative
and radical, under u Government
where, as it thinks, there are no set
tied institutions to be conserved, and
everything is already under the un-
restrained control of the majority.
The surprise which the Times ex-
presses, results from its inexact no.
tions of our complex political system.
Confusion of thought on this sub
ject is perhaps pardonable in for
eign journal, when so large Il portion
even of our own people perpetually
confound the very distinct characters
of our State and our Federal institu-
tions.
Our State Governments are pure
democrtcies; and in them the fierce
and vehement contentious which are
so constantly witnessed in our Federal
politics never take place. Our State
Constitutions are, at all times, COM
pletely under the control of major
ity Of the citizens, who modify, alter,
abolish and renew the Constitution of
their own State as often as they
please, even without regard to the
methods of amendment prescribed by
the particular Constitution which is,
for the time being, in force. In 1916,
for example, the people of the State
OF New York displaced their Consti-
tuition and substituted q new one,
Ill total disregard of the provisions
for its own amendment contained in
the discarded instrument. Where
the will of the majority is thus abso-
lutte, there is no place, as the London
Times (rationally enough) supposes,
for hot and vehement party contests
between conservatives and radicals
And it is a noble vindication of this
restricted form of pure democracy, as
it exists in our State Governments,
that the people are SO we'll satisfied
with its operation, that the most or
dinary municipal elections seldom or
never turn on questions of State po-
Icy. We are accustomed to elect
even our petty local officers almost
solely with reference to their views
on questions of Federal pol; les
But our Federal institutions are by
no means, as the London Times seems
to suppose, subject to the control of
n majority of the people. If simple
majority of the people of the United
States could mould or change the
Federal Constitution. as majority of
the people of New York can change
the Constitution of the State, the
Federal Constitution would have
been made, within the last few years.
q totally different thing from what it
is. Radicalism, in its present phase
in this country, is the chafing of an
impatient and reckless majority
against the barriers to their will
erected by the Constitution. Our
conservatism is resolute opposition
to changes in this instrument not
made in the manner it prescribes.
The Constitution of the Union, un-
like those of the States, is not at all
under tie control of majority of
the people. In amending it, the
majority principle is utterly discard
ed. Each State is unit, and every
State has precisely the same weight
as every other, whether its popula-
ton is large OF small. A State like
Oregon, with barely people enough
to entitle it to one Representative, is
just as potential, in amending the
Constitution, as the State of New
York, whose Representatives are
thirty-one. The majority principle
is not only completely discarded by
this perfect equality of all the States,
but not evenA majority of the States
have any power to make changes in
the Federal Constitution. In amend
ing the Constitution, each State,
large or small, counts but one, and it
requires the concurrence of three
fourths of these Federal units to
ratify proposed amendment. So
completely is the majority principle
discarded in the fundamental basis OF