New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-03-15
RAnrGAL INooNsrsTrNcY.

RADICAL INCONSISTENCY.
Whenever it suits the purposes of the Northern
| radicals, they can put forward and advocate the
doctrine Of State rights and State sovereignty az
vigorously as ii was ever done in South Garoiina
or Virginia. States like Massachusetts, and Ver-
mont, that, as a general thing, proclaim state
Sovereignty political heresy, can, when occasion
serves, become loud-mouthed in their advocacy
of it. 1t cannot be forgotten that 1t was on the
principle Of the reserved rights of the States that
the fugitive slave law of Congress was practically
untitled ia all of New England, and that the infe.
ror courts Of the Northwestern States made moth
inc Of setting aside the legislation of Congress
i when such legislation contlicted with their inte-
rests or their prejudices. No longer ago than last
/ year the legislature of Connecticut undertook to
tax, for State purposes, the bonds of the United
States, although such taxation is expressly forbid
den by act of Congress-and when the law of Con
gress was brought forward in derogation of the
power Connecticut was highly offended at this
trespass upon her reserved rights, and wanted to
know, with indignant emphasis, why State could
not tax any property within its borders that she
chose.
But if any Southern State, even before the war
limited at such thing as its reserved rights it was
Immediately denounced as rebellion and treason.
1t was all right for New England to nullify the laws
of Congress- she having, by virtue of her superior
1 intelligence and patriotism, " divine right to
rule; but it was quite different thing in Virginia
or Louisiana, and the case was altogether altered
when it came to working of the rule both ways.
Mr.. Reverdy johnson, in the United statessen-
ate the other day, brought to light little bit OF
! political history, which is somewhat refreshing.
lit appears that the people of Ohio, although the
ISupreme Court had decided the fugitive slave law
| to be constitutional were in 1859 altogether OF a
| different opinion. At all events, they held that
the State in the exercise Of her sovereignty, mad
right to pass laws that would render the Federal
| law nullity. Some excitement having occurred
about fugitive slave case, a convention was held
to express the opinions of the people, We will let
Mr.. johnson tell the story in his own words:
On the 18th of May, 1859, but little more than
\ seven years ago, a convention was held at Cleye-
| land, Ohio Il was stylel convention OF the sons
| Of liberty, and was presided over by Joshua r.
Giddings, lately United States consul general for
the Canadas. Upon its committee of resolutions
the chief man was Benjamin F. Wade, then as now
United States Senator from Ohio. That committee
brought forward series ofresolutions which were
adopted, the principal one being as follows:
"Resotued. That the several States comprising
the United States of America not united on the
principle of unlimited submission to their general
government, but that by compact, under the style
and title of Constitution for the United States,
and Of amendments thereto, they constituted a
general government for certain definite powers,
reservlng, each State to ITSELF the residuary mass
or right to their own selfgovernment; and that
whatsoever the general government assumes I'M
delegated powers, its acts are uuauthoritatire
void, and of no force, and being void, can derive
no validity from mere judicial Interpretation that
to this compact each State acceded as a State and
ont Tod
by this compact, was not made the exclusive or
final judges of the extent of the powers delegated
to itself since that would have made Its discretion
and not the Constitution the measure of its power.
but that, as in all other cases of compact among
parties having no common judge, each party has
an equal right to judge for itself, as well Of in
fractions as of the mode and measures ofredress"
And that resolution, it is said, was supported
not only by my friend from Ohio {hIr. Wade), but
by the present Chief Justice of the United States
and that was nl1S59 literally transcript from
some of the resolutions offered by John G. Cal
houn.
The phraseology of the above quoted resolution
reminds us OF the famous Kentucky resolutions of
1913 and 1913. We have not the latter by us at
present, but the language according to our recol.
lection, is wonderfully alike. Who would
suppose that the radicals of to-day, were
engaged, in 1859, in asserting the prin-
cipes which the States rights party of the
country have held from the very beginning of the
government? Who can reconcile the inconsistency
thata government is "a compact when Ohio
says SO, but not compact when Virginia says so
Who can account for that accommodating fexi-
bility of opinion which breaches the extreme doc
trine of States rights one year, and the absolute
necessity of consolidation the next?
The result of the war has caused the practical |
of the theory on which people of I