The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1869-04-22

its perpetuity and indissolubility are dis
tinctly affirmed. Citing the words of the
Articles of Confederation and the Consti-
tuition, the Court inquiries: "What can
be indissoluble if perpetual Union made
perfect is not?" The Court, however,
finds that this perpetuity and indissolubil-
ity are not inconsistent with the indepen-
dent self existence of the States; and, hav-
ing made the Union as strong rs it can be
made by the use of the best language at
its command, the Court proceeds, by a SIM
liar process, to give the greatest possible
strength to the Sta,,s 1.-THE indissolubil-
ity of the Union" says the Court, "by no
means implies the loss of distinct and in
dividual existence or the right of self-gov-
eminent by the States. The Con-
stitution and all It's provisions look to an
indestructible Union, composed of hides
truc'ible States. < There was no
place for reconsideration or revocation,
except through rer0lutt0n, or through the
consent Of the States"
Indissoluble, however, as the Union
may be, it is, as the Court admits, dissolu-
BILE In two ways: by the consent of the
States, and by revolution. Here are very
important points being lightly touched
upon; too lightly, perhaps, considering
with recent events and present conditions.
What is meant by the consent of the
States? What is meant by revolution
Until these matters are reduced to GER
tainty, questions remain Of vital moment
to the well-being of the present and of fu-
ture generations. If there can be recon-
sideration or revocation through the
consent of the States" how many
States, and how? If Through
revolution" how is the revolution to be
conducted in order to render the proceed
ing legitimate, and how signifed?
AS between nation with vast and IRE,
sistible power, and component part oil
that nation with comparatively feeble
power, there must be different degrees of
indestructibility. The indestructibility
may be absolute in one case, but it is far
from being so in the other. We know
that States are not indestructible for
States have been destroyed-are now
lying overwhelmed in destruction. Prac
tically we have, without the presentation
of hypothetical cases, the best of evidence
of the non existence of an indestructible
Union composed of indestructible States :
of the fact that such thing has no po-
tential existence. In short, we have the
alternative if the Union is indestructi-
BILE, the States are not and if the States
are indestructible, the reverse is the case
with the Union.
1t must be admitted on all hands that
the decision is, incidentally, one of vast
importance 1t is no light thing for the
highest tribunal in the land, the court of
last resort, the authentic Interpreter of
the Constitution, to have decided that the
States of this Union are indestructible-
that the obligations of the seeding States
as members of the Union, and of every
citizen of those States, as citizens Of the
United States, remain perfect and unim-
paired that the States have not ceased to
be States, nor their citizens citizens of the
Union. Rights are the correlatives of obi
cations; and if these States are States of
the Union, and their citizens citizens of the
United States, and are under obligations
as such, it irresistibly follows that to
them appertain all the rights which cor
respond to such obligations to the States
the right of autonomy and self-existence !;
and to the people the right of self govern
ment, as fully and perfectly as they ap-
pertain to any of the States or their peo-
Piles.
From this it follows, furthermore, that
the United States can acquire no right of
action against States, or against their cit
liens collectively, to dismantle or recon
struct the one, or to disfranchise the
other that the States neither have ceased
nor can, at any time, cease to exist; and
that the people cannot, except by their
own voluntary act of abdication, lay
down their rights as citizens of the States,
and, by consequence, as citizens of the
United States.
Virtually, therefore, the decision is a
judicial condemnation of the entire plan
of interference on the part of the general
government with the concerns of the
States or with the political free agency of
the people. 1t places the whole machin-
cry of reconstruction, whether by legisla
lative or executive act, in the light of g
usurpation. 1t condemns all that has
been done in the past, and is a protest
against all that may be done in the future
Missouri ReDuMic1n 14fh