The States and Union. [volume] (Ashland, Ohio) 1868-1872, 1871-12-20

embrace this idea fulh-, all the danger
of Capitalization will pass away,
though we discard the idea of State
sovereignty.
I do not differ so much with many
gentlemen in regard to what the
rights of the Statessare. 1 differ
with them in regard tothe titles by
which they hold them. IF say that so
far as State rights are concerned, and
the rights Of thegoYernment, hat we
are not to go back beyond the period
of 1885, whom the Constitution was
formed. The rights of the order
States, and of Rhode Island as she
has them now, are to be dated from
the formation of the Constitution
Then they came into Aeonvention-
They had the right t.. make any sort,
of government they pleased, and they
did. And in that government they
guaranteed and secured to the States
the great body of rights in regard to
local and domestic government, but it
was the agreement of the nation at
that time. So far as the the new States
ARE concerned. they are to come in on
an equality. IThey are to have the
same rights with the old and this
theory would be impossible of execu-
ton except upon the idea that the
rights of the States and the national
government are to be determined
from the action that was taken at that
time. The difficulty had been in re-
gard to this theory of State sovereign
ty; and the assumed right OF. seces
sion and nullifcatioh was the result.
They ASSUMED that these; States exist
ed as nations separate and distinct be-
fore that time, and that they only
loaned a portion of their rights for a
particular purpose. That IS the base
of that theory. ~,
When we sift this sophistry we find
ifs Fundamental idea to be, that the
Estates derive their rights solely from
the national authority and net from
their unborrowed and original powers
as States. The necessary inference is,
that what the national authority
granted, it can, at its pleasure resume:
that the States have no rights OF
which the National Government may
not freely deprive them whenever it
thinks fit This was never the doc
trine of Webster, nor of any former
statesman who undertook to refute the
heresies of Calhoun. 1t was reserved
for Senator Morton to discover that
the States did not come into the Union
in the possession of any antecedent
rights, and that they hold all their
rights by mere grace and favor o. the
CENTRAL AUTHORITY. 80 =
He, ~at1east, made an odd selection of
a place for promulgating this new
gospelaof centralism.i 1t so happens
that Rhode Island affords a decisive
1Itest of the soundness of his doctrine
For a period of fifteen months after
tie organization OF the Federal Gov
eminent and the Inauguration Of
Washington, Rhode Island stood out
side of the Union and acted a. al in
dependent nation. Both Rhode Island
and North Carolina were treated as
such in the early legislation of Con-
gress; as witness, for example, the
following section of m act passed
September l6, 1TS9: q L.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted,
That allrum, loaf sugar and chocolate,
manufactured or made'in The Stsaesof
North Carolina or Rhode fslund and
Providence Plantations and imported
into the United States, shall be deem
ed and taken to be subject TO like du.
lies as goods of the like kinds import.
ed from any foreign state. kingdom or
country. SID -f- r.. ~ is's-: -:
Not even Mr. Morton will maintain
that the Federal Government had any
authority or Jurisdiction over Rhode
Island, until she at least came, by her
own voluntary consent into the Uaion.r
During the period while she stood out
side, she was an independent, sover-
eign nation, treated as such by the
Federal government. From whence
did she derive her sovereign rights?
Not from the Federal Constitution,
which She took no part in framing aud
ldeclined TO ratify, but from original
inheritance throHglt the Declaration
Of Independence. If anybody dis
putes.that the States were Originally
sovereign, the history of Rhode Island
lis a conclusive REPUTATION She was
treated as a sovereign, Independent
nation by the Federal Government IL
self. That State is a beautiful spot
for ipfomulgating the new doctrine
that the States were not originally,
sovereigni She furnishes the very
example by which original State SOW
ereignty is most ananswerably proved.
Mr.. Morton asserts that the Con-
iventicn of 1877 formed the national
government. In point of fact that
Convention merely prepared the draft
of an instrument, which had no force
or validity until ratified by the sepa-
rate States, each of which was jos st as
free TO reject Us to adopt it, If only
! eight of the thirteen had ratified ii, it
would have fallen still born. The
consent Of nine States was made ne
cessary to the organization of the new
government; and if only nine had
adopted it. The remaining four would
have been independent sovereignities.
But according to Mr. Morton's new
imperial theory, the Convention Of
1887 had power to bind the whole
thirteen States, and; grant to them, or
| withhold from them. whatever. rights
it pleasedl A theory which IS in snchl
glaring conflict with history must have
been invented for some sinister pur-
pose. Its Object is to take advantage
of the prevailing public sentiment
against secession for absorbing all po-
litical power into the national GOV
erLment.
Mr.. Morton says y t