Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-05-17


on foot, nor did they suppose That 1t
volved any question as to Stste-rlgh's
because they Immediately proceeded to
one. Mr.. CALHOUN himself aideq
In doing the same afterwards.
1t is true that the doctrine Of strict
construction of the Constitution figured
greatly in the dispute; that there was
no express grant Of power to create q
National Bank, and that the power was
to be deduced from other provisions oil
the Constitution, by implieaAon' or as
necessary to the exercise OF the powers
expressly granted and this was claimed
N ha : I~atfudinarian construction Of
the instrument, and therefore in viola
ton Of The principles ofthe States rights
creed.
The Constitution provided thst the
powers not granted TO the United States,
were reserved TO the States OF the people.
Few men would deny that a strict con-
struetion of the grants of power was
proper and sound, when the question
was, whether a particular power was
granted, to be exercised by the General
Government; or reserved, to 6cereTcised,
by the States and the people Of each.
AS to other powers of government,
which must necessarily be exercised by
the General Government, or not at all,
the reason for insisting upon a strict con-
struction of the grant fail, or did not OBJ
tain and the grant being for beneficial
purposes, might by the rules OF eonstruc-
ton in such cases, which are simply the
deductions Of common sense, be taFgey
construed. There was no reason why
such powers might not exist by implica-
ton from the nationality Of the United
STATES. IT as coroIlaries from general pow
ers expressly granted. The reason is a
simple one. As to these powers, there
was no other claimant. Being powers OF
government and legislation, theyexisted
somewhere; and they not only ertsted
somewhere, but, not remaining In abey-
auce er reserve, to be at some time
brought into Use, by agencies not yet ex-
isting. they were rested somewhere, to
be exercised whenever occasion should
require.
If the General Government, or in
other words, all the States Jointly, IN
dertook to exercise any power which q
STATE could exercise, if it had continued
a distinct nationality or any power, by
the exercise whereof the exercise Of any
other " possessed by a State was
narrowed, limited or restricted, or the
supremacy Of its law within its own
limits interfered with or its equality in
the Union put an end to, orthe ike, then
the State could claim that no such power
had been granted and that, in deciding
whether 1t had been, the grants Of power
in the Constitution should be strictly
construed. The Southern and trua con
structiou is that the word people, in
the reservation Of powers, meant the
people Of each State, not the aggregate
people Of all the States and that the
word States. in the an connexiOn,
was 10 be taken distributively, as il the
words each State had been used in
stead 80 that the reservation was the
same as il it had been to each Of the
States and to the people Of EACH For a
reservation is in favour Of and bg aparty
to an instrument, and Of some power,
right or title already possessed by him,
and which, by reseryiHg it, he declares
that he retains as he had it be-
fore, and does not part with. The States
we're the only parties to the Constitution,
and the reservation was in their favor,
and the word " people was mere suplus-
age. No powers were reserved TO the
people oraH the states together, because
theu previously possessed no government
al powers as q political unit and if they
had taken any under the Constitution, it
must have been ~ the grant Of powers
made by the individual States, and not
by the reservation. No governmental
powers were reserved, therefore, by the
people Of the United States, in the ag-
gregate, and none were reserved by
the States, except such as they had before,
and did not part with by grant. The
reservation was by each State Of a part
Of its ouB powers.
Wherefore, unless these powers,o or some
one or more Of them were in question,
the fundamental doctrines Of the State
Rights party were not at all involved, and
the rules Of strict construction did not
need to be applied, and if applied, they
were not loved, but abused.