Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-03-04

Swan, who pronounced the opinion of the
majority OF the court In the case referred
to, and for no other reason than that he was
compelled to say, under the solemn duties
of q judge bound by his Official oath to sus-
tain the supremacy of the Constitution and
the law: 1.-The prisoner must be remand
ed" The action of the leading officials of
the party which was so clearly and forcibiy
fndorsed by the party In convention as
sfmbled, was not in the line of the true idea
OF state rights as taught by. Jefferson and
Madison, and as understood aud believed
In by the Democratic party. but it was an
effort to carry into practical, operation the
secession aud notification ideas of the .ex-
tremists of the South. And now, gentlemen
OF the Radical party, If there is any thing
more wanted by you to show where your
party stood up TO the year 1850, let US trans
the Radicals of the Reserve. which con-
vened at the city OF Cleveland in May, 1859.
for the purpose OF showing their indiyna-
ti0n at the decision referred to of the Su-
preme Court of Ohio, and of denouncing
the said court and the Government of the
United States In. general: and the fugitive
slave act in particular. The meeting was
presided over by Hon. r. P. Spaulding,
who Is now following the behests of Thad-
deus Stevens, temporarily, and by Joshua
r. Giddings, whose body now "lies moul-
dering in the grave, out whose soul is
marching on,n permanently. Immense
delegations from Ashtabula, Lorain and
other places where the; heresy of State
rights is now bitterly denounced, were in
attendance. The meeting was addressed
by Chief Justice, then Governor, Chase,
Columbus Delano, Judge ID. X. Cartier,
Judge Hitchcock and others, all of whom
are to-day opposed to the Democratic
party and are in full communion with the
Radical party. Governor Chase in his re-
rEa no fnr fho
lease of any prisoner should issue from the
courts of the State, he was free to say that
as long as Ohio was sovereign State that
process should be executed. He was in favor
of reciprocity, but Ii the State court issued
papers and process, the Federal court must
show the same difference to the State court
that was at other times shown to the Fed
eral court. *# His deliberate judgment
was that no person could be seized and
captured while he was citizen of any
sovereign State under the Constitution of
the United States" In the declartion
which was adopted amidst the greatest en-
thusiasm, the first Kentucky resolution is
set out verbatim and it is also asserted,
''That in the opinion of this assembly, an
amendment of the Federal Judiciary sys-
tenn is indispensably necessary, so that the
sovereignty of the States may be respect
ed, and that individuals may be guard
ed from oppression. Every living mem
UeT OI aCflaL cO1VeilLlOn alSfaLO=Qhy Ill Iull
sympathy with the Radical party, and
many of them have been repeatedly endors-
ed BY being elevated to important offices in
the Government. and one of them sitting
to-day as Chief Justice of the Federal Ju-
.diciary. is The main reliance of the majori-
ty in Congress in the effort to overthrow
and subvert the sovereignty of the States.
This new light upon the doctrine fState
rights was not Obtained by the Radical
party, indeed. until after the Chicago Con-
vention OF 1860. for in the platform of that
Convention, and upon which Mr.. Lincoln
was first elected President, it is declared:
.'That the maintenance inviolate OF the
rights OF the States, and especially the
right of each State to order and control its
own domestic institutions according to its
own judgment exclusively, is essential to
that balance of power on which the per-
lection and endurance of our political fab
ric depends" No one at all familiar with
the history of the Abolition party can
doubt where it stood up to 1860, and if the
doctrine of State rights is the mother of
all our woes, as the gentleman asserts, 1
would advise him to be more careful in the
future of anathematiZing the South, and
look to the leaders of his own party tor
men equally as deserving in this regard of
his denunciations.
Until the war commenced the Abolition
party expected to work out their designs
through the agency of this doctrine OF
Jefferson, and all its leaders were wont to
claim him as their great apostle and teach
er. rejoice that to-day the name of JEFF
ferson is not used so much for base pur-
poses as it once was, and that no one has
the hardihOOd to cite him as authority for
the So called reconstruction acts of this
Congress, and that from such disgrace all
the fathers of the republic are saved.
But we are told that the doctrine of
Gtnf iDhf 70 10 fhn nfrfn Of
and the Democratic party are charged as
being the advocates of secession. l deny
it. The doctrine of secession is not dedu-
chile from the resolutions of 1898 by any
fair construction, and the authors of those
resolutions, who are much better qualified
to interpret their meaning than any other
man can be. directly discarded any such
Interpretation.
The doctrine of the Democratic party
was clearly ard forcibly expressed in the
Convention which framed the Constitution
of the United States when the question OF
the proper mode of ratification of that in
strument was under consideration, by Mr..
Madison, who urged that 1t should be SUBJ
mitted to Conventions, in the several States
of the confederation, elected by the people
for that purpose, and not to the Legisla-
lures of the several States, for in the form
cr case it would be a Constitution of the
people, and either the States or the General
Government violating the provisions OF
that Constitution its act would be void.
while in the latter case the instrument
would become mere compact between
two sOvereignties, and either party violat
Ing the terms of the compact the other
would be released from the obligations OF
the same. The views OF Madison were
adopted by the Convention, the Cons titu-
tion was submitted to the people in the sew
eral States and ratified by them, and the
n.aunn 10 arvt,, has ol fryov hnna
no State could sever its relations to the
General Government except by revolution.
And this was the settled doctrine of all
parties at the commencement of the rebel
lion.
Mr.. LEE-Will the gentleman permit me
to read an abstract from one of Madison's
Essays IN the Federalist?
Mr.. FOLLETT-Certainly sir.
Mr.. LEE reads" Suppose, for moment
that the supremacy of the State Constitu-
tiOns have been lett complete by saving
clause in their favor. - The
world would have seen for the first time, a
system of government founded on an in
vasion of the fundamental principles of all
governments; it would have seen the au-
thority of the whole society everywhere
subordinate to the authority of the parts
it would have seen monster in which the
head was under the direction of the men,
bers." CN
Mr. FOLLEII-l nave SAID nothing in
cOntraventiOn of the doctrine of Madison,
as set forth in what the gentleman has
read. Madison was always consistent with
himself, whether advocating the resolu-
tions of 1898 or writing for the Federalist
The difficulty is not with Madison, but with
tue gentleman and his party friends, in not
being able to understand how it is possible
that the General Government should be
supreme in the exercise of the powers del
egated to it by the Constitution, without
like supremacy in the exercise of all pow.
ers. Let me remind my Radical friends
that 1.-The powers not delegated to the Uni
ted States by the Constitution, nor prohib-
tied by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people," and
that while the General Gnyernment is COZ