Juniata sentinel. [volume] (Mifflintown, Pa.) 1846-1873, 1871-05-03
Repert of the Committee on Border
Claims, and Bill for the Payment OF
the Same. g

is whether the United States are liable
for the losses upon the border, either
by reason of direct constitutional OBJ
legation or by reason of particular facts
connected with the several lnvaslons of
the State, or by both.
By the fourth section Of the fourth
article of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States it is provided that the United
States shall protect each Of the States
Of the Union against invasion. This
guaranty is coupled With two others
the one for protection of the several
States against domestic violence upon
demand of State authorizes, and the
other to secure 10 them republican
forms of government. Against every
: .orm of external and internal danger,
accompanied by violence, this compre-
hensive section of guarantees was in
tended to protect the States, aud the
obligation assumed by the United
States under it has but one expressed
Limitation, which Is, that the interpo-
sltion of the Federal Government
against domestic violence must be in
voked by the Legislature of State or
by the Executive thereof when the
Legislature cannot be convened. No
one can doubt, upon reading these
guarantees Of the Constitution, and du-
~ considering the g neral objects for
which the Constitution was made as
announced in its preamble, that COM
plete defense to the States was promis-
ed and intended thereby. anC that an
obligation of self defence which, IN the
absence of the constitutional compact.
would have rested exclus vely upon the
several States was thereby charged
upon the Federal Government. 1t is
not necessary 10 insist that the States
respectively parted with the right of
defending themselves against external
danger, when imminent, or against ac-
tual invasion, but unquestionaoly the
whole duty of defenulng them was i'm
posed upon the United States. Nor
can be doubted that the obligation and
duty of the United States to protect
each State against invasion is not con-
fined to cases OF invasion by a foreign
enemy. The guaranty is expressed in
general language and Is without llmita-
ton. An invasion of a State from an
other State or association of States Is
as mrch provided against as an invasion
from. abroad. This is the clear conclu-
sion to be drawn from the language of
the guaranty, and from considering the
known reasons which dictated Its inser-
ton in the Constitution. Hence Judge
Story, in his wOik upon the CoustItu-
ton, section 1873, III speaking of this
declares, "that the latitude
Of the expression here used, seems to
secure eacl State not only against for
eIgn hostility, but against ambitions or
vindictive enterprises OF It's more pow
erful neigh bors"
1t is beyond dispute that the United
States did not keep this guaranty of
defense upon the several occasions when
our border was struck by the enemy
during the recent war of the rebellion.
The guaranty was not kept and duties
under it performed by the United
States, and By reason of their default
our citizens were assaled IN their peace
fui homes and their property appropri-
ated, or wasted and consumed. They
we've completely innocent Of all blaEe.
They had performed all their duties
both TO the State and Federal govern
ments, by contribution of taxes, by
voluntary assessments upon themselves
10 aid of the common defence, by the
raising of troops, and by complete obe-
lience to all the laws of tie iarl. But
their Just cl1im- their absolute right
to protection and defence against ex-
.ernal violenee--was hot maintained
BY either of the governments to which
hey Owed allegiance.
1t is true, as general principle,
hat protection against invasion Is due
rom every society to the parts compos-
NC it." Story on Con-, sec. 1SlSl.-
The correlative of allegiance rests upon
,very State, and in the absence of COM
,act or treaty between States is exclu-
lively State obligation. But under
'ur system of duel government the
ase is widely different, as already
hown. Primarily this obligation un-
luestionaoly rests upon the United
states, was assured by them in the
7ederal compact for full and valuable
The contribution of
'tate strength to the Union, aud tie
sumption of numerous and onerous
uties to the Federal government by
he people and government of each
tate constitutes the solid foundation
pon which this Federal obligation
ests. 1t follows that a State may
emand this protection for its citizens
rom the Federal government ir every
ossible ease, and hence in no casa can
he answer be made by or in-behalf
t that government that the State is
ound to defend itself.
If, then, any obligations or duty
ests upon State 20 protect its own
eopie against invasion, it must be con-
dered as one to be discussed only be-
xeen tee State and its own citizens in
lew of the peculiar relation which
lbsist between them. The United
tates cannot assert any such State OBJ
CATION or duty in the faoe of their own
ear guaranty contained in the fourth
rticle of the onstItutioD.
In default of the Constitutional pro-
,ction of the State by the United
tates against INVASION. and of actual
c;ence of the State by herself lin con-
'quence of such defaultl, can any one
QUOT that the outlay incurred by the
tate tor defensive purposes would con-
Ruc a just demand against the Uuited
iAies. In such ease ouch. not the
party to make good the
ntiay incurred by reason ,f its de-
Iult, and when the State makes her
amaud for reimbursement uo,lJ :,