The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-07-24
local State Authority

81 doubtful relation TO it, IL not W '''o'
ough opposition. ooo xo,, No..
The State Rights party of 1900 real ne.
,,,,,icsn narty-claimed with earnestfeSS
aud energy that there were rights OF '".
states that must be respected by the feoe'S,
government. and if not so respected, mus,
be defended. How these were tone ae'e"' ''
VOC never very well defiifsd, although 1t wls
asser,ed that the states were Che judges o,
arrangement of these rights. fhe feoei q" ;,
rurty as clearly asserted State r'sS's' ""N
recognized the limitations of the ecu
ton upon the States on the one hama anu -
Fedora, Government on the other. ou. 'he,
c;,:,,s.d mt the United States supreme Court
WAC the proper tribunal for deciding ques-
t;ons Of infringement Or the constitutional
restrictions either by the States or the Hede-
-, Government. This arbiter IN the prem
fses was rejected by the Republicans as benz
n mart of the Federal Government itself, ana
therefore its judgment would be that OF
party to the case.
What substitute for the supreme Court
was offered by the Republicans in cases OF
dispute between q State and the "eielai
Government. we say, was never clearly dc-
tided. One idea was that the State Leglski-
ture should decide another; that the people
I'm their highest representative character
fiat of n ouvention-should decide. but,
after the decision was arrived at, u WIS ell
firely unsettled how that decision was TO be
enforced. The State had not the physical
force for that purpose, and the question
whether it should apply to sister States Tor
helm at once presented the case az one OF
right in the doubtful attitude of depending
upon the Judgment of the other States
upon the vicissitude Of popular oplnion-and
the willingness or Discrimination OF the States
TO approve and defend it by force. 1t was
this point of enforcement that gave the JET
EERsoSrAS Republicans their chief concern.
It's uncertainty involved the asserted right in
the question ms to it's practicability. Resort
to arms they differed about. Some leaders
could not contemplate that ultimatum, while
others of more ardent temperament hcsitated
not to follow the assertion Of right to that
conclusion.
The Federalists, as well as Republicans. re-
copnizcd State authority under the Constitu-
fion-that authority which General GRANT
and his followers have troddcn into the dust.
The Federaist remedy for It's invasion was
the Supreme Court. Mr.. WEBSTER was the
expounder of this creed: Mr.. GREELEY fol-
lowed it.
But the war, as we have frequently stated,
and as everybody must see, has proved tho
utter inability of the States to defend their
rights when inlrngcd by the Federal Gov
crnment: 1t is equally apparent that the SUI
nrcmc Court is no reliable umpire between
Them and the Federal Government, Of which
II Is part.
70 what source can the States look for pro-
lection in the exercise of that power which
the trainers of the Constitution wisely aot-
ted to them as the best practical way OF pre-
serving orderand administering local justice 7
To the peopie Of the Un1ted States, who have
the power TO change their rulers--to turn
out incompetent and put in competent nell
to turn out the dishonest and to put In the
faithful--to turn out the Just and put iii
the iust-to turn out those who cannot con-
strue the plain meaning of the Constitution
and put in those who cam and who Will re-
spect the rights of the States and the people
in short, to eject usurpcrs and fill their places
with wise and faithful administrators of M
tonal affairs.
To this exact point comes the Liberal party
when, in its platform; it demands the rees
Enlistment Of local State authority which
GRANT has utterly destroyed. Mr.. GREELEY
is pledged to the declarations of the platform
on this point, with IN added emphasis III bis
clear and admirable letter of acceptance.
What other guarantee can we expect OF
practically obtain Mr.. GREELEY has always
advocated the Federal view, which clearly
recognized State authority under the Consti'
tuition. The Fcderalists not only recognized
it under the Constitution, but they recog-
nized its essentially rs one of the most yalu'
able parts of that system of authority divided
between the States and the General Govern
ment, which was thought to he the best ever
conceived for the liberty and contsntment
the people and the just administration OF TIT
laws. Mr.. GREELEY is in nowise inconSI>t
cnt in his pledge to respect and, as far as h'
eau, if elected, reUstablsh State authority.
We, confess. however, that the Journal has
good reason to distrust men. Genera
GRANT was n Democmt-a States'-right:
nd ba hoS Iriynn St1fpS'
like moles 10 hide in the ground, and he la:
driven citizens deprived of the great Demo
cratic shield Of habedS corpus to seek refuge
in q foreign land. The Journal has good
reason to be distrustiul. 1t may well say il
the Democrat General GRANT treads Demo
cratic principle into the very mire of con-
tempt. why may not Dir. GREELEY do the
same?
Let the Journal distrust everybody if il
will on account of the faithleSsness and
usurpations of GRANT (and we regard it III
: its representative capacity as speaking for
the GRANTEES, old and neto). The people
have faith in men. Honesty still exists. All
men are not ty lants--all men are not faith
less-there are some living who will be faith
full, and the great Liberal party, composed OF
all parties and OF the great majority OF
the people. believe HORACE GREELEY is
honest, will be faithful, and rs far as he can
will restore local self-goYernment in the
States, freedom of the citizen, and the
sacredness of the writ of liberty-the hdbeas
corpus. They are going to try him in the