Oregon Republican. [volume] (Dallas, Or.) 1870-1872, 1870-11-12

really amounted to nothing; fer the
only Legitimate construction that could
be put upon 1T was, that the word
people meant the whole people of the
United States, and not the people of a
single State for the result of the
hitter construction would. be to I'm
do and destroy all that Washington and
his copatriots had, by their great wis
dom and efforts accomplished, and the
amendment might as well be out as
in the Constitution; for il the people
are the source Of oil power, then all
not delegated by them to any branch
of the Government, naturally remains
with them, and it was only adopted to
satisfy the political wh'ms OF few " ho
opposed the adoption of that instru-
ment
We have already shown that any
other construction of the word people
than to make it'apply to the whole
people of the United States, would at
once establish as true the doctrine of
State Supremacy and peaceable seces-
sion, aad wipe out for ever in this Gov.
ernment, the crime OF treason in any
person or persons who should see fit tn
take up arms to defend an ordinance of
secession passed by the representatives
of their own State. And now We ask
in all candor, what objection can be
urged against the doctrine that this
Government is one of the people, aud
that in their hands is all power, or the
sovereignty OF this nation Cac it be
said that the rights of the citizen arc
unsafe where the supreme power is in
the hands of the whole people F? WIN it
be eoutended that minority ought to
rule the majority? Will any sane man
say that the will of the whole people,
when fairly expressed, ought not to he
carried out? What benefits, then,
would result from the establishment of
the doctrine OF State supremacy None
whatever but evil continually. Il was
the people who adopted the Constitu~
tion, and declared that It should be the
supreme law of the land, anything in
the Constitution or laws of State to
the contrary notwithstanding and also
that all laws passed under the Consti-
tuition should be paramount to any
power possessed by single State and
this provision Of the Constitution alone,
completely and for ever anihilates the
doctrine OF State supremacy.
And again, we ash, do not the people
possess tho power, under the Cousttu-
ton itself, to change, alter or abolish
it, and substitute anything they desire
in its place, as amendments thereto,
provided they do ii in the mode therein
prescribed !? Most certainly they do,
then what is left of The supreme pow
of an individual State? All we contend
for is, the establishment, beyond con
troversy, Of the principle that the su.
preme power of this nation rests wisa
the people; that they have a right,
through their representatives in Con-
gross, to enact any law they desire, con-
sistent with the Constitution which they
themselves have adopted; and that
whenever they desire to enact law,
it it should be such a one as is now for
hidden By the Constitution, they possess
the complete and uncontrolled power to
so amend that instrument as to allow
their servants to pass the law desired,
and in that manner under all circum-
stances, to enforce their will.
We are not now attempting to discuss
the question as to the extent of the
powers conferred by the people upon
any branch of the Government but
fhe question is, who possesses the abso>
lutte power which cannot be controlled
by any other power, the people OF each
State, independent. of all or any other
State, or the people of all the States
in the aggregate? We say the whole
people of all the States possess it; for
if it be true that the people of each
State possess it, each for itself, then, so
long as one State in the Union should
refuse to give It's assent to an amend
ment proposed to the Constitution. it
could not be Incorporated. The very,
fact that three fourths of the States
possess the right under the Constitu-
tion to pass any amendment they may
desite overthrows the whole theory OF