New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-11
AUTHORITY.

ing his conduct, In the most mOmentOuS
crisis of his life, by what he supposed
would he the wishes of his deceased
father. Foolish as such course is seen
to be in the case of an individual, there
are not few SOi-disant statesmen OF the
present day who would apply the same
rule of conduct to national affairs. In
pursuance of this retrospective policy
they are continually looking back to the
opinions of the trainers and supporters OF
the constitution, laboriously ascertalning'
by the diligent perusal Of their Writings
what they thought and taught on poh'-
ical questions, and setting up the result
of such labOrs as criterion Tor
the present direction of government But
what if the constitutional fathers had
done the same thing? What if they had
looked to their deceased ancestors for
opinions, and been guided in the practi-
cal craftsmanship of their times by the
teachings of men who had lived in cir
cumstances wholly different? Where
would then have been the famous declara-
ton of independence, the revolutionary
war. the constitution in which We take so
much pride? They would never have
existed. Reverence is good thing, but
abject imitation is very poor one. 1t
is the spirit Of our illustrious ancestors
that We should cultivate, not their
opinions that we should adopt. The lat
ter were appropriate to their clrcumstan-
ces; the former was radical and progress
sive. If reverence then is to be our ruling
motive let us look not at what our revolu-
tionary fathers did, but at the spirit in
which they did it. The habit, however,
of always looking backward for authority
is servile and unmanly. Each generation
should do its own thinking, as each man
must do his own eating. We may indeed
gain advantage by the experience
of our forefathers, but such advantage
will spring, in a great measure, from OBJ
serving how inappropriate their teachings
are to our circumstances. The young
and impossible regard institutions as
fixed, laws as permanent. But it is not
so. In the words of our great American
philosopher, The law is only memo
randum.' 1t expresses the cultivation
existing at the time of its enactment,
nothing more. 1t is binding, indeed.
until higher cultivation repeats it; but
as that cultivation gradually advances the
old law loses its hold on men regard
until it becomes USUALLY some time be-
fore its actual repeaD dead letter. The
statute stands there to say yesterday We
agreed so and So" But yesterday is
passed, and with to-day's sun have risen
new views, new theories.
The question whether this country is
confederation or nation, which is being
periodically brought forward for discus
sion, under the delusive prestige Of the
light Of other days is in point It Is
claimed. on the one hand that our revo-
lutionary fathers, the trainers OF the con-
stitution. intended to establish not a la
ton but a confederation; and, on the other
hand, it is maintained that all their pro
visions looked toward the establishment
of nationality. To us it appears & matter
of very small moment what our fathers
intended in the matter. The question is.
what co we desire? What has our expe
rience taught US? What is the expressed
will of the majority Of the citizens Of the
United States to-day? Madison, and
jefferson, and Hamilton-aye, and a
greater than these, Washington him
self-may have all held that this coun-
try was a federal republic, and differed
only in the amount Of power which each
would have accorded to the central gov
eminent Not one of them, perhaps,
would have admitted as it, Irerogative
functions which have been assumed by
the present administration or either Of its
immediate predecessors. What then? These
men may have been wise in their day and
generation, but that day is gone by, and q
new generation sees everything in diff
ferent light Admit that We did not
begin our political life as nation. What
of that, if we have outgrown. OF the ma
jority Of US have outgrown our political
homage, and adopted the theory Of ma
tionality as that best adapted to our
genius as q people? Such certainly
seems to be the case, and the
advocates of the exploded theory
of State sovereignty ransacking the nausty
papers of by-gone period for author
tiles, place themselves in the position OF
the foolish cavilers who insisted that
President Lincoln could not issue the
emancipation proclamation. To which
his simple answer was But have al
ready done So
| Just 50 with regard to the learned ex-
| tracts from the writings of the trainers OF
the constitution, proving that We cannot
be nation. The reply is : We are na,
ton, in spite Of the constitutional fathers
and if the fact does not appear in our or
ganic law, let it be made to appear there
as soon as possible, or let the law be IN
terpreted in accordance. with the fact
| Let the dead past bury its dead.
| We live i'll the ever breathing NreseLt,