New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-02-22
FALSE TO THE FAITH.

really no settled sense of principle. He
will denounce or applaud, as the act may
profit or damage the party to which he be-
longs. He has no sincere comprehension
Of moral principle. for he will censure a
dangerous doctrine or corrupt deed III a
party antagonist. not because the poll
! tician thinks anything worse OF the pro-
! fessor of the doctrine or the perpetratof
/ of the deed. but because he thinks hone
est people may be prejudiced against the
wrong-doer by their adherence OF wrong
! There are many among as who claim
that the States are independent OF the
Federal government in all things III which
a power to legislate has not been directly
given TO Congress. They cling to the eX-
| IRENE doctrines of State sovereignty. yet
they did not hesitate TO resort to Congress
to invade the altar Of State right to decide
! a domestic question. and even now urge
that Congress should Sc: aside two
| State governments. each claiming to
| be legitimate. and conduct an
election under its own laws and auspices.
This inconsistency is enhanced when the
same partisans assert that the government
of the United States is tyrannicai and
corrupt. and charge that its purpose is
consolidation. Now if this last suspicion
were true. what reader mode could be
adopted 20 obliterate the last faint lines
width separate statehood from federalism
than the assumption recommended? Per
haps no stronger example OF this inca
pacity 20 appreciate ene's own protested
principles, when manifested in political
opponent, can be given than in the con-
temptuous treatment OF the views en-
bodied in the report of Senator Morton
by the ultra State rights politicians OF our
city. He asserts that the decree OF the
Supreme Court of State is paramount,
when il does not come in conflict with the
powers granted to the federal government
by three States. He maintains that
Louisiana has government republican
in form, whose legality is in contest among
her own people and before her own courts.
He says there are many and modern e1-
amples of this same disturbance in various
States, but urges that this family quarrel
so long as it does not disturb the peace of
the country affords no reason for the per-
petual Intervention of federal authority.
He almost apologies for the Intervention
of the federal government when the South
ern States were without any formal gov
eminent, and so far from making this
exercise of power ground Of further en-
croachment, he attributes it to "constitu-
tional and political necessity" Naturally.
the advocate of the rights Of the States
would hail this as the doctrine Of a con-
vert, or would congratulate himself upon
an advocate SO powerful in the councils of
the country. What, let US ask. could
present a more moderate doctrine than
this:
The theory Of our system is that every
State government has the power and ma
chinery to correct the wrongs and frauds
within itself, practiced under cover OF, OF
in open violation of, its own laws, and that
the decision Of its own tribunals, created
by its constitution and laws, tog such pur-
pose. must be received as final.
Or this:
a State in which there is profound peace,
and in which the State government Is re.
publican in its form, and discharging its
functions in every Gepar tment without inter-
ruption, even in cases that come within Its
scope it should not be exercised except IN
the last resort and the States should be lett
to work out their own relief and TetoTma-
ton as long as there is any hope.
Yet we see this man and this doctrine
secuted by those who claim to be the
special guardians Of State rights; they ad-
yocate the Intervention OF new State
election by authority of the federal gov
eminent. This abnegation Of professed
principle through the rancos OF party or
greed of office has been accompanied with
even o more serious dereliction Of prln-
ciple. Men have been selected for candi-
dates for the presidency and Representa-
tives in Congress who are openly hostile
to the doctrines of State rights. This is
intended, no doubt, to divide and destroy
the Republican party. but it will more
probably produce the same effect upon
the despairing and disguised friends Of
State rights. Such dereliction of prin.
eiples honored in the advocacy of great
men! Who has right to sell out or sur
render them? It is as if those who ap.
point themselves to watch the sword and
sepulchre of some mighty warrior should
AFTER the sacred trusts for sordid lucre.