The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1874-10-23
'wHAT ARE STATE GOVERNMENTS
EORr'

hItb DIhIb
EORr'
The Oregonian editor propound'
the interogato1y that forms the cap
ton Of this article, and then pro.
ceeds in nearly column article tc
answer it himself, and for nearly
everybody else, in the following Ian.
guage:
At tho risk Of being thought by
one people impertinent, and by an
other sort ignorant, we venture to
suggest the inquiry: "What are
State Governments for?" We make
this suggestion not because we can
perceive no need Of such institutions,
but because the subject appears to be
one upon which the people either
have no definite and fixed views, or
have every one his own peculiar view
II would be, to say the least, not an
unnatural idea Of the utility of State
governments to suppose they were
better adapted than the National
Government to devise and admins
ter all ouch laws and local regula-
tions as directly and Immediately af-
feet the welfare of the people, and
are not connected with those more
general questions of which the M
ton has, and must have, the exclu-
sive management. Indeed, we have
been in the habit Of assuming that
something like this, with necessary
qualifications, &c, was about the
true and rational idea of State gov
ernments. But this is evidently q
mere notion. 1t is q nero notion to
the extreme partisans Of what are
known as State right doctrines, be-
cause it is inconsistent with that kind
of sovereignty in the State which re-
duces the Federal Union to o ''rope
of sand;" and it is the idlest mere
notion in the world to the race of
Republican carpet-baggers that have
for some time been the rulers and
destroyers Of the South, because it
implies that those in Office have du-
ties md responsibilities beyond and
above the drawing Of their salaries,
the fobbing of their perquisites, the
hiding Of their stoalings, and the
plotting to perpetuate their own
power.
The Oregonian's inquiry is an i'm
portant one, and one that every citi-
zen should be able to answer, and
about which it is remarkable that
there ever should have been any cav
illing, History teaches us that State
governments were first in point Of
time, and were independent OF each
other-as much so as they were of
the balance of the world, and hence
were sovcreign States. AS such they
were competent to form an alliance
or confederation with sister States
Tor mutual protection and such other
purposes az seemed calculated to
promote the public good. This they
did-frst by the articles Of confeder-
alton and afterwards by the Constitu-
ton, and thus surrendered to COM
mon federal governmentsu such powers
as were necessary for the purposes Of
the confederation and no more. The
people of the several States evident
ly foreaaw the danger Of merging
their State sovereignty into o CEN
tral government and sought as
far as possible to guard against it,
Our domestic troubles have not
arisen from want Of sufficient pow
Or on the part Of the federal govern
ment to execute its legitimate func-
tions, nor that the States were un-
willing that il should exercise all
needful constitutional powers; but
from desire on the part Of the former
to encroach upon the rights Of the
latter. This spirit of encroachment
assumed alarming proportions after
the close Of the late civil war in the
abolition Of State governments by
Congressl We do not hold that be-
cause the federal government has no
constitutional right TO abolish a State
government or interfere in any way
with tho local affairs Of a State, that
il is therefore "rope Of sand"-its
powers arc ample for all noedful pur-
poses designed by its founders, and
the incentive for union is too great
for II 10 fall from sheer weakness;
the dangerto DO apprebended is from
the assumption and exercise Of ua.
warnntablo power by the federal
government II cannot be made
strong enough To stand, II it forces
. revolution,