Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-03-25
STATE INDEPENDENCE.
letter from Ex-senator Dixon, of
COnneetIeut.

No political question is of create
Importance, and at this period i
our history, when our country
suffering from the consequences
carrying the doctrine of State right
!. to dangerous extreme, it is yer
important that we should guar
against an equaland perhaps great
r er peril in rushing to the oppOsit
3 extreme. There is somewhere
| point where the rights of the State
and the delegated powers of tn
Federal government meet and har
monte. Since you call on me, il
you paper of Saturday last, to re
ply to certain interrogatories OF
this subject, you will, | trust, per
NIT me to give my views briefly il
reply.
| You deny, if | understand YOU
position, that by the true intenr
and meaning of the electors oath
required by the constitution anC
laws of Connecticut, that State i:
Independent, because the elector is
also bound by the same oath, tC
support the constitution of the
| United States. The oath is in the
following words;
You, A. B., do solemnly swear
that you will be true and faithful
TO the State of Connecticut, and
to the constitutional government
thereof, as free and Independent
State, and to the constitution of
the United States, etc.
Now, il is perfectly evident that
the trainers Of this oath did not
suppose an oath to support the CON
stitution Of the United States in
consistent with the obligation in
the same oath to be true and faith
ful to the government Of Connect
cut as a free and independent State.
In other words, Connecticut is a
free and Independent State, not
withstanding the obligations Of its
citizens to support the constitution
of the United States. The latter is
not in conflict with the indepen-
dence of the States. This is the
true doctrine:
"The constitution of the United
States is a grant Of powers where
they did not before exist, but the
constitution of Connecticut is
limitation of powers already exist
ing, leaving the Legislative depart
ment, subject to the limitation
specified, as it found it Opinion
Of Chief Justice WHliaMs in the
case Of Pratt rs. Alien, IL conn.
Reports, page ll9.
The grant Of powers to the gen
eral government did not deprive
the States Of their independence.
All powers not granted were ex-
pressly reserved by the tenth ar
ticle of the amendments of the
constitution Of the United States to
the States respectively or to the
people. See article 10 of amend
mentS.
1t is thus apparent that the gov
eminent of the United States is
limited in its powers The first
section of the first article of the
constitution of the United States
provides that All legislative pow
ers herein granted shall be vested
in a Congress of the United States.
Powers not granted being reserved
the government is, of course, linn
tied to the exercise of the powers
granted. Yet, Notwithstanding this
limitation, you argue that the gov
eminent Of the United States is
sovereign-and, of course, you
claim that it is independent. A
limitation of its power, therefore,
does not in your view conflict with
its sovereignty or independence.
Yet you hold that because Connec-
ticut has delegated q use the
word used by the constitution
certain powers, therefore her gov
eminent is not independent-while
in truth the delegation Of powers to
the General government does not
at all conflict with the independence
of the State in in other re
spects. That this is correct doc
trine is shown by the fourth article
of the declaration of rights in the
constitution of Massachusetts, which
is in the following words
"The people of this common
wealth have the sole and exclusive
right of governing themselves asa
free, sovereign and independent
State; and do and forever hereafter
shall exercise and enjoy every pow
er, jurisdiction and right which is
not, or may not hereafter be dele
gated to the United States Of Amer
lea, in Congress assembled.
The constitution of New Hamp-
shire-made in 1792-atter the
adoption of the constitution, also
declares the sovereignty and indie
pendence of that State in the fol-
lowing words:
"The people inhabiting the ter
ritory formerly called the province
of New Hampshire, do hereby sol
EMMY and mutually agree with
each other to form themselves into
free, sovereign and Independent
body polite, or State, by the name
of the State of New Hampshire. "
These two States, Massachusetts
and New Hampshire, claim in their
constitutions not only independence
but sovereignty, Notwithstanding
their delegation Of certain powers
to the government of the United
States.
The trainers Of our constitution,
and Of our electors oath, were there
fore guilty of no inconsistency when
they required our electors to swear
to be true and faithful to the gov
eminent of Connecticut, "a an in
dependent State, and at the same
time to swear to support the con-
stitution of the United States. The
two obligations are seen to be en-
tirely consistent with each other,
when we remember that the gov
eminent of the United States is
one of delegated powers, to the ez-
ercise of which it is expressly linn
tied and confined, and beyond
which il cannot 60 without, viola
ton of the constitution.