The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1866-02-17

i pie would assemble III thousands. ant
drive thirty times the number of thei
few regiments. We would do with then
us we have already done with theercgi
ments of that king, which he so Otter
1 tells us of So, too, Mr. John Marshal
conceived the question to be whethe
Democracy or Despotism be most eligible
and was sure both those who framed tn,
system under their consideration, anc
those who supported it. intended tn,
establishment and security Of the former
He said, ave are threatened With tn,
loss of our own liberties by the possibl,
abuse of power, Notwithstanding tn,
maxim that those Who give may tax,
away 1t is the people that give poweI
and can take it back. What shall re
strain them? The Government is no
supported By force. hat depending on oul
free will. When experience shall show
us any Inconvenience, ne can then cor
rectit. Let us try it. and keep our hand.
| free to change it when necessary Mr.
Madison also opposed the right of coercion
as shown. and admitted the right of State,
to withdraw from the Government they
were forming. Speaking upon the clause
concerning the militia. and in favor of it
he said, :. If we be dissatisfied with tht
National Government ii ne should
choose to renounce it, this is an additional
Safeguard to our defense" Again the
same gentleman says. I'VE have heard
Of the inipious doctrine in the Old World
that the people were made for kings. not
kings for the people Is this same doe
trine to be revived in the New, in ano:he,
shape, that the solid happiness of the
people is to be sacrificed to the views oi
political institutions Of different form
1t is too early for politicians to presume
on cur forgetting that the public good
the real welfare of the great body Of the
people, is the supreme object to be pur.
sued; and that no form Of Government
whatever has any other value than as II
may be fitted for the attainment Of this
object. Were the plan of the Convention
adverse to public happiness, my voice
would be, reject the plan. Were the
Union itself inconsistent with the public
happiness, it would be, abolish the
Union" But the most incontestible
proof of the position of Virginia on this
question is to be found in the mode Of
ratification adopted By her Convention.
The first part of this important document
runs as follows: e We, the delegates Of
the people of Virginia, duly elected in
pursuance of recommendation from the
General Assembly, and now met in Con
yention. having fully and freely investi-
gated and discussed the proceedings OF
the Federal Convention. and being pre-.
pared as well as the most mature deliber-
ation hath enabled Us TO decide thereon
De, in the name and in behalf of the
people of Eir.sin declare and make
known that the powers granted under the
Constitution beng derived from the peo-
pie IF the United States. may be re-
|snmed by them whatsoever dhe same
shall be perver ed to their injury or OPP
preston. and that every power not grant
ed thereby remains with them and at
their will; that, therefore no right of any
denomination can be cancelled, abridged,
restrained or modified By Congress. by
the Senate or House of Representatives
acting in any capacity, by the President
or any department, or any officer of the
United States, except in those instances
in which power is given by the Constitu-
tion for these purposes" Thus she. too.
claims and declared the right of resuming
the powers granted whenever perverted
to injury or oppression. and gives sue
cinct account Of her understanding of the
Constitution. As Mr. Madison says, in
advocating this form of ratification, "there
cannot be more positive and unequivo-
cal declaration of the principles of the
adoption"
But it may be objected, as it has been,
that all such declarations are mere
J" br,ttuns falnsen," and are not in any
way binding on the General Government.
1t might be sufficient answer to this to
say that such was not the opinion of those
best qualified to judge--the founders
witness the above declaration of Mr..
Madison. and also the following argument
of Mr.. Nicholas: Said he, 1.-THE language
of the proposed ratification will secure
everything which the gentlemen Mr.
Henry and Others, who wished more posi-
tive declarations in favor of the States
" desire, for these expressions will be-
come part of the contract The Con-
stitution cannot be binding on Virginia
but with these conditions. IF thirteen
individuals are about to make contract,
and one agrees to it, but at the same time
declares that he understands its meaning,
Specification and intent to be what the
words of the contract plainly and obvi-
ously denote. that tits not to be construed
so as to impose any supplementary condi-
tion upon him, and that he is to be exon
Grated from it whensoeyer any such impo-
sition shall be attempted, | ask whether
in this case these conditions on which he
assented to itwould not be binding on the
other twelve9 In like manner these con-
|ditions will be binding on Congress.
They can exercise no power that is not
expressly granted them. But it may be
said the Union is contract between
States, not men the cases are not analo-
gous. The above reasoning is neverthe-
less applicable, aud we are here met by
Mr. Madison who, after considering the
subject as compact between men, and
coming to the same cenclusiols as NJ
Nicholas. turns out. to consider it next a,
between States. Il g If,'' says he, kswe con
slider the Federal Union as analogous. no
to the socisi compacts among individua
men, but to the Conventions among ipdi
yidual States. what is the doctrine re