American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1873-04-05
Modern State Rights.

After all, the Republican party is zeal
Gus champion of State Rights. That is
to say, it is prepared to exhibit the ten
derest respect for those State Rights
which Republican happens to represent.
When Democrat presents himself
as the representative of autonomous
liberties, il has nothing but supreme con-
tempt for both him and them. Given,
however, Republican, from Re-
publican State, demanding certain con-
stltutlonal or even unconstitutional pri
vileges, and it shows a familiarity with,
and fondness for. the State Right theory
that the ex-President of the lost Con-
fe1eracy could not surpass The first
conspicuous proof of its respect for the
doctrine was shown in the Supreme
Courts decision in the Missouri test oath
case. The Court could not and did not
disguise its horror at the ingenuity of ma
Lightly and injustice of that oath which
disfranchised one-third the people of Mis-
souri, ; but it refused to disturb it, on the
ground that, though it was er post facto,
and retrospective in its nature, and a bill of
pains and penalties, State had the Con-
stitutional right to define the qualifica-
tons of its voters. After this eXtraordi-
nary decision the doctrine was permitted
to slumber till 1870, when Gov. Clayton,
of Arkansas, was indicted in the United
crate and defiant violation of the Congress
sional enforcement act that had ever been
brought to the notice of Federal Grand
Jury. Clayton did not deny the charge,
but claimed that the Court had no iuris-
diction over him, under the law, because
he was Governor of q State-and the
Court admitted the force of the plea and
dismissed the case. Had the plea stated
that the Enforcement act was made for
Democrats, and therefore distinguished
Republican could not be tried for viola
ting it, the truth would have been more
accurately stated But the most daring
exemplification of the State Rights theory
ever seen was reserved to the late Con-
gress. Twenty years ago, the doctrine
was employed to protect slavery; now it
is employed to protect all crime. Twenty
years ago, 1t meant the right of a citi-
zen of Mississippi to own slaves;
now it means the right of a Senator from
Kansas to give and receive bribes the
right of a New Hampshire Senator to
sell his vote for shares in a Joint stock
corporation; and the right of Repre- enta-
tives and Senators from any number of
States to accept brides and then commit
perjury, without FORGETTING their Repre-
sentative and Senatorial privileges I'm
der this new and most ultra interpreta-
ton, one member of the Senate is as good
as another, because one State is the equal
of another. One Senator may be a man
OF Infamous personal character-a
murderer, a bigamist, convicted
thief, a hardened felon from the peniten-
tiary-yet for all this he has equal rights
in the Senate with Mr.. Sumner, or Mr..
Carpenter. or Mr.. Thurman, and the
Senate has no more right to exrel him
for being fe'rn than it mad to expel Mr.
Sumaer for being an honest man. The
expulsion of felon Senator would be a
violation of the Constitutional rights of
the State he represents, and an insult to
that State itself. If the purchased Jeeis-
lature which sent him to Washington
prefers a felcn in the Senate, that body
must bow in respect TO the VIII of the
aforesaid purchased Legislature, and ad-
NIT HIM to seat, provided he be Re-
publican. This is the argument in the
Caldwell case. and it was TIE argument in
the Ames and Brooks case 1t is a revival
Of the State Rights doctrine for the pro-
lection of the Constitutional rights of
infamous men; and, in avowipg it, Con-
sress virtually declares that violator of
all laws divine and human, may sit in
the Emitted States Senate, provided he be
faithful member of the Republican par
ty.--nissourj ReDub tcan