Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-06-03

incoherence Of some Of its provisions, AMI
. the ambiguous language Of Its preamble
made It possible for men honestly t
! differ as to It's msaning, and the partieI
: to It, and the nature Of the Government
, created by It; bat 1t hardly seems pos
: sible to mistake the meaning OF the Ar
tieles OF Confederation. But the uttel
want Of the logical faculty is not uncom
mon; there is no limit to the hal1ucina
tlons of the intellect; and perhaps 4
would be unjust in any case to believe
that msn was not In earnest Ia laying
: down the most preposterous propositions
The author then enters on an argu
ment to show that the States had OBJ
tanned no sovereignty, and therefors
could retain none. 1t would be answer
enough to this to say that if these were
not Sovereign, they could not confede.
rate and so constitute q Sovereign Ma
ton. To prove his proposition, be as.
J sUmes that the Colonies, seeking inde-
pendenee, and In order to obtain 1t,
'' transferred their allegiance to a third
pOlUeT,n the United States, by whoss
arms they were liberated that by the
articles Of confederation they "surTsH-
dered to the Uiaited States, every i'm
portaut and substantial element Of Sow
ereignty, go far SIS they could surrender
the same, and that surrender was per-
pstual." 1t is difficult grsvely to dis
. 1 ~Irr Oh vrd er
directly In the teeth of the articles them
selves. Without any argument at ali, IT
eoolly begs the whole question, and as
sJtnies what needs to be proved, since 1t
is absolutely denied by the articles them
selves, and the declaration Of the States
that they retained their Sovereignty.
There was no transfer OF allegiance to a
ehlrd party, no surrender OF any at
tributes of Sovereignty. There was a
league or simple partnership between
| the States, and an agreement between
| them to exercise certain powers jointly
and refrain from exercising them sepa-
rstely. The people did not, as the au-
| thor says, confer these powers on the
United States and prohibit them to the
| States in the articles Of Confederation.
70 assert this is simply to misrepresent
aad distort the articles. The people did
not transfer their allegiance from Great
Britain, mot to the States, but to the
power known as The United States in
Congress assembled" The Colonies de-
elared themselves independent, became
states, and then confederated together.
A Judge, at least, ought not to srgue
legal propositions, without taking the
trouble TO look at the authorities. 10
4cIEU0iHe q. Co1e'S Lessee, 4 CraRch
zoe, the Supreme Court of the United
States decided that the several States
composing the Union became entitled,
on the An of July, 1875, to all the rights
and powers Of sovereign States, SO far at
least as respected their internal reguIa-
tiOns ; and among these rights was that
60 the allegiance of their citizens. The
opinion of the Court was delivered by
Judge Cushing, q Massachusetts, Federal
ist The treaty OF peace, he said, cor
tanned recognition, not grant, Of the
independence of the States. The Opin-
ion Of Judge Hunter will hardly be
deemed to outweigh this decision.
Another ludierous proposition is, that,
because sovereignty is with the people,
and unless they confer it, a GoUernnezt
cannot obtain it, and as the people Of no
State, by its Constitution, conferred on
their State GorerRment any OF the essen
tial attributes Of sovereignty, therefore
the States never obtained any sover-
eighty.
The Government Of State Is not the
State. The people Of State are the
State; and the State ts sovereign be-
cause the people are. The people do not
confer sovereignty on the State.
The author denies tbat Great Britain
Gin acknowledging oar independence
could confer sovereignty and independ-
ence on the several States. The States
were parties TO that Treaty; and they
required Great Britain to ackno Wedge
each State, by name, as free, sovereign
and independent. Her acknowledge
nlent was recognition of their claims.
AS the States did not surrender any
attributes of sovereignty, by the Arti-
cles Of Confederation, but themselves
continued jointly to exercise them, we
need not notice ths defamation based
upon the assumption of such Surrender.
We think that Judge Hunter is the first
diseoverer of such surrender; and that
no one, before him, had ventured on so |
bold Misrepresentation OF the Articles /
of Confederation. If he decides on the
bench as be argues abont these articles,
justice must be finely administered in his
Court.
Having thus. as be thinks, shown that
the States were egregiously mistaken In
imagining that they ever were sove-
reign, the Judge proceeds " to fresh fields
and pastures new" and treats of the his
tory OF the formation of the Constitution.
He quotes Story, Who declares that,
under the articles of Confederation, Con.
0Tess IN peace a0dS possessed of 6ast a
delEsfpe and shddOwy sovereignty, with
little more than the empty pageantry of
Offices" who reeites the powers it did
possess, and those 1t did not possess, and
could not exercise; Judge Hunters ar
gument that all tSe essential attributes
Of sovereignty were surrendered by the
States to the United States. In the lam
gusge Of another writer, quoted by him.
Congress had exclusive power for MANY
purposes, without being able to execute
one Of them; borrow money, bat not nav
a dollar; coin money, but not purchase
an ounce OF bullion; make war, but not
raise single soldier. They could raise
no revenue, levy no taxes, enforce no
law, secure no right, regulate no trade.
and pay nothing to thsir judges on for.
eign ministers.
To what respect Is dissertation enti-
D