New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-01-20
orr or PLACE md TINE.

OF all the States of the Union, we should
least expect to receive from California such a
fatuous and fogyish protest against the spirit
of the times, and the principles of our Govern
ment, MS is contained in the message which
Gov. Haight Democratic, of course) has trans
mitted to the Legislature against the Fifteenth
Amendment. If he advanced single point
on the subject that had not previously been
broken by thousand arguments and crushed
by hundred battles, we should have had more
patience in going through the immense mass of
small print in which we have searched for his
reasons. But the way in which lie brings out
the ghosts of defunct theories that were mere
nuisances during their lifetime, and nothing bit
nuisances from their birth to their burial-the
way in which lie ignores the history of the last
decade and the decade before 1.-THE
way in which he attempts to drive
back the century hundred years
the way he talks about the unchangeabity of a
Constitution which has already fourteen
amendments, and for which another is impera-
lively demanded-the way in which, toward
the close of his message he jabbers about
chains tyranny" &c. &c.-is more than
we can tolerate without a cOunter-prOtest
against lHc NHOio lnluS' NHooc pdlIo IL 10
worth while to notice. If we could assent to
single sentence of his message. it would be
that in which he says "A man may deny that
the world is round, that the sun is the
"source Of light and heat, that Gen. Jackson
commanded the American army at New
"Orleans. or any other fact, either of history
or of nature - and we would assent to this
mainly because Gov. Ilalght gives us positive
proof that there may be such man, and that
lie may be elected Governor of California.
The gist of his argument is the same rs that
of the old Nullifers; but he goes much
further than ever tho Nulifers went.
They never denied the validity of n
Constitutional provision, but merely asserted
the right of a State to annul an unconstitutional
lar of Congress. He not only says that eff the
Fifteenth Amendment be adopted, it will be
"mere brutenl tulmen, destitute Of any validity
whatever" but he takes ground against the
Fourteenth Amendment, which was adOpted'
under Johnson's Administration, and denies the
authority by which such amendments are estab-
lished and enforced. 1t would be useless to
coll his attention TO the theory of our Govern
ment and Constitution for this he evidently
considers of no account. He goes out of his
way to assail the principle by which Congress
itself has existence, and by which its power is
exercised. lie declares that the control of
California aiIairs-refcning to the provision
for universal sufliage-by representatives
Z" elected by the people of ono or more of the
atlantic States, is essentially a dospotic con-
"trol, because it is exercised by legislators
neither chosen by us nor responsible
"to us; aud he argues that, because
California has only three of the pa members
of the House and two of the "a Senator's
Congress has no right TO dictate the domestic
and internal policy of the State" But why
does he jumble up things in this way1 1t is
true that Congress has no right to interfere in
the strictly local affairs of State-not. how