The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-05-24

interested in defeating the consolidation
policy. Tennessee and Missouri both claim
to be intolerant in their lOyalty-.proscriptiv
in their patriotism. Each has availed itself
of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution
to create tests and impose disabilities with the
view of strengthening the radical party.
They have carried out the State sovereignty
principle according to their own notions of
expediency. The results have been harsh and
evil in both instances, but the general prinoi-
pie on which they have proceeded, being in
entire accord with the recognized understand
ing of State rights, has passed unchallenged.
Both States, then, are standing radical pro-
tests against the Sumner Phillips innovation
For if Congress may be properly called upon
to force one set OF views upon Maryland, why
may 1T not, with equal propriety, be urged to
interfere in Tennessee If it may to day dis
franchise Governor SWANS Rebel sympathiz-
ing friends, why may it not tomorrow dis
franchise Governor Brownlow's rufians and
cutthroats, and consign their arms TO the
State arsenal2 Or if it may thrust negro
suffrage upon New York and Connecticut,
what is to hinder it from meddling with mat
ters over which Governor Fletcher and the
radicals of Missouri claim jurisdiction?
In Missouri, indeed, the question has taken
a practical shape. The Judges of its Supreme
Court have come into conflict with a decision
OF the Supreme Court of the United States,
and in support of their position lay down dicta
in regard to the reserved rights of States with
warmth of dogmatism that would have ex-
torted admiration from Calhoun. The Supreme
Court of the United States, it may be remem-
bered, not long ago declared the test oath of
the Missouri radicals unconstitutional. But
the Supreme Court of Missouri, adiudicating
the other day in the Blair -Ridgley case pro-
ceeds on the broad ground that while Federal
sovereignty is limited and derived, State
sovereignty is original and inherent, being
limited only in regard to powers explicitly sur
rendered. South Carolina never spoke more
strongly on the point than these radical
Judges of Missouri, as may be inferred from
utterances like this-
"The States, when they entered the Union, re-
tanned all their original power and sovereignty,
except such as were expressly surrendered to
Ine Senerah S9vernment, rr or ihey were ex-
these exceptions, they are independent Com.
monwealths, and the exclusive judges of what
is just and proper for their own safety, welfare,
and happiness"
Yet further these exponents of Missouri
ideas ASSERT
"Prior to the adoption of the Federal Consti-
tuition, the respective States possessed un-
limited and unrestricted Sovereignty, and re-
tained The same ever afterwards, except so far
as they granted certain powers TO the General
Government, or prohibited themselves from
doing certain acts Every State reserved to
itself the exclusive right of regulating its own
internal government and police"
'lnuepenuenJ commemorative, almost
unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty, -
Exclusive judges of what is right and proper
for their own safety" Exclusive right of
regulating their own government and police"
Why, these phrases, true though they be,
sound so oddly coming from radical lips that
they form very suggestive indication of
difficulty in the way of the consolidation policy.
True, this exposition of the doctrine of State
sovereignty is levelled at the Supreme Court
of the United States, and is pushed to a de-
gree which cannot be sustained. 1t is case
in which the Judges of State declare their
jurisdiction superior to that of the Court of
the nation, precisely as was done by the radi-
cal Judges of Wisconsin in the days of the
Fugitive Slave law. But the whole argument
applies with equal cogency to a controversy
between State and Congress, with negro
suffrage as the point in dispute. When,
therefore, Mr.. Sumner brings up his scheme
for legislating negro suffrage into all the States,
let us not forget that the radical Judges of the
Supreme Court of Missouri have proclaimed
these States independent commonwealths, -
each possessing "the exclusive right of regu-
lating its own internal government" The
principle, thus applied, is old as the Union,
and needed not the indorsation of the Missouri
Bench. But its reafirmation in this connec-
ton is reasonable, as an answer from radical
lips to the most aggressive of radical demands.