Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1872-01-16


laws. The first was n law furnishing the
counterfeiting of bills of the Bank of the
United States. The second was the sedi.
tion law, and the third was the alien law
Although introduced for temporary
purpose, they have outliyed that pur.
pose; and they present one of the mos.
pertinent illustrations in all history of the
truth, that statesmen should never do
anything ior n temporary purpose that
will not stand the test of time.
Such doctrine is Il perpetual threat
against the life oil The nation, and it is
never safe while it lasts. 1t is poisoned
dagger, always ready TO 10 cIutchcd by
desperate factions. Even the party to
which he belonged was not safe from it.,
for 1t was notable thing that when n
party is pursuing main purpose they
adopt those principles which contribute
to their success. In 1912 some Of the
New England States resortcd to this doc.
trne rs a justification OF their opposition
To the war, when Governors Of Mas.
sachuselts and Connecticut refused to
honor requisition Of the United States
FOR troops. They based their refusal on
the ground that they were the proper
Judges OF whether proper contingency
had arisen in which the President had n
right to call for troops, and they decided
that he had not. The Hartford Conven.
ton in 1914 breathed the same doctrine
OF State sovereignty, of nullilication.
How strange is the lesson. The Federal
party that held and composed that con.
vcntion had been distinguished Tor liz
advocacy OF strong central government,
but in its opposition to the war OF 1912 it
gradually drifled into the assertion of
State sovereignty aud accordingly we
find II, ia the Hartford Convention. in
its very first resolution, declaring it to be
the duty OF each State to adopt measures
10 protect itself against the drafts and
conceptions and levics OF Govern.
mcnt of the United States that were not,
IN The opinion OF the States. authorized
by the circumstances. Two.thrds of the
newspapers of the South to-day ara
teaching this same doctrine of State
sovereignty, and newspapers in almost
every State in the North are teaching it,
The great strain upon our Government
IN the past has not come from centrali2a-
ton, but from denying to the Govern.
ment it, constitutional powers and its ma.
tional character. If in 1860 aud 1861
The President and Congress had exercis-
cd their just constitutional powers to
crush ,hc rebellion, the war of four years
might have been avoided. The great
strain upon the Government in 1898 and
1872 and 1914 and 1882 arose from a
certain assertion OF the character and
power OF States and q denial of the ma
!ioual power of the General Government.
The doctrine Of notification put forward
IN 1892 was not in regard to slavery, but
to nullily the act OF Congress levying
duties upon foreign imports.
The doctrine, when examined in its
essence, the lecturer declared absurd.
almost contemplate 1t assumes that
each State is a natOn-that Rhode Is.
land is Il nation, Connecticut another and
Indiana another. These nations. having
all the attributes and the powers of ma.
tionalities, have formed this Government.
and it is a compact, 4 mere treaty OF a.
lance.
But it becomes even more ridiculous
when we consider it with reference to 4
new State. For example. Indiana, n
new State, wa, carved out of territory
belonging to the United States. As n
State, Indiana is an offspring OF an act
of Congress, and but for that act OF
Congress, would to-day be but depend.
ent territory And yet, according TO
THEN wonderful doctrine, as soon rs Indi.
ana WAS admitted into the Union she be.
came u sovereign and independent State,
party to this compact by which this
Government was formed, which is quite
as absurd ns Il man is in assuming TO be
his own father.
As an opponent to this Senator Morton
set up what he termed The national idea.
He assumed that this Government was
formed by the Government Of the Uuited
States in their aggregate and in their
primary capacity; that instead of their
being thirty-Seven nations there is but
one, instead of their being thirty seven
soyereignties there is but one sovereign
ty; that the States are not sovereign, but
that they are integral and subordinate
parts OF one great country. He would
not obliterate State lines, but there is q
vast body OF State rights guaranteed and
secured by the Constitution of the United
States, by the same Constitution that
created and upholds the Government Of
the United States; that these State rights
have the same guaranty that the rights of
the National Government have eouallv
entitled to the protection of the Supreme
Court, springing out OF the same instru-
ment, and that one set OF rights are just
as sacred as the other. He assumed that
State rights were consistent with national
sovereignty, and are safest under the
protection of the nation. The States
have their rights by agreement of the
nation, and derive them from the same
source as the National Government, the