New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-03-21
STATS R1oHrs, FoRsooTH!

twas the old fable Of the two friends
and the bear; one climbed tree, the
other placed himself On the ground and
pretended to be dead. The bear having
passed on without killing him, the agile
climber came with the facetious inquiry
what the bear had whispered into the ear
of his friend. HE gave me, J" said bis
friend, 'sthis excellent advice: Never
again to associate with wretch who
would, in the hour of danger, desert bis
friend" Tie Northern Democracy did
not by any means content themselves dur
ing the last war with neutrality and mac
ton. They joined the power in hostility
with the Southern Democracy, and aided
in their subjugation. The Northern Dem
ocracy has had hard task to reconcile
their fragrant reputation of the State
rights principle with the hiring Of
substitutes and acceptance of contracts
to subjugate their Southern friends. They
found the leaders of Southern Democracy
so famished for salary, that they submit
ted to the support of an Abolitionist and
high tariff Republican. as also to Yankee
State rights Democrats. Still there were
many Democrats at the South who had
been shocked by the shameful deserton
by their Northern brethren. Mr.. Cox. of
New York, has attempted to bridge the
chasm and reconcile the treacherous
abandonment and recapture by force of
arms of the Southern political serfs Of the
Democracy.
We have quoted the resolution offered
in the House of Representatives by Mr..
Baker, of Indiana, and said: '.In it is en-
bodied the Republican idea Of the status
and powers of the national government,
as determined by the appeal to arms"
This decision of the war was defeated
by q Democratic House.
Mr.. Cox affirmed an opposite doctrine.
which was carried by the Democratic
House.
To . cursory observer the antagonist
theory Of popular sovereignty of the
whole federal people has been defeated,
and the anti-war doctrine of Mr.. Cox
That the government of the United States
is Q federal Union, and was formed by tho
people of the several States in their s0v-
ereign capacity; that the rights and powers
OF the United States government are defined
and limited by the federal constitution, and
these powers and rights can not be enlarged
nor diminished except by an amendment to
the constitution.
Is the established belief of the people, as
by the vote Of their repre-
$50 to AZ. The apparent in
ference would be that the war settled
nothing except emancipation, and that
even emancipation may be amended out
of the constitution.
Mr.. Cox knew all the time that the doc
trine of Mr.. Baker was established. He
this by codicil which re-
voked his resolutions. 1t read:
Resolved. That the doctrine that q State
has right to secede from the Union is in
conflict with the idea of q perpetual
aniOn," as contemplated by the cOnstitu-
lion, and should be regarded as being for
sver extinguished by the results OF the re-
cent civil conflict.
Now, if the results of the recent civil
conflict settled the con ,truction of the
right to secede, why does it not also de-
tide the right of federal construction as
for by the party prevailing in
he war?
What was the right of secession? 1t
was denial that Congress or the courts |
,ad the power to decide questions in issue
between the federal government and the
States. 1t was claim that the States had,
n the last resort, the right to fix ''the mode |
md measure ofredress" Notification was
,ne mode of asserting this right. Secession
vas another. Both have been renounced.
What mode of asserting and affirming
hese rights of the States then exists |
Will Mr. Cox tell us? He says that these
lights ''can not be enlarged or diminished
except by an amendment of the consti- |
ion."
How are these rights to be asserted
suppose any right shall be invaded, what
would be nOc the course of redress |
Mr.. Cox has surrendered the right of the |
State to construe the constitution, resist |
he federal government CT to withdraw
rom the 'confederacy." What, then,
would be the remedy?
l. An appeal to the federal courts.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is
lot regulated by the States. The judges
re not nominated by the State, but by
N executive elected by the whole people
# the United States. The federal courts
IRE then nominated by the whole people
# the United States and not by the
states. Popular magnates in the States
,oncede with the electoral majority of the
Executive. The federal judiciary in 1860
leld with the bred Scott decision. The
ederal judiciary in 1865 had reversed
hat decision.
Whatever question of rights may be
by a State to the Supreme
court may expect decision conformable
With the doctrine sanctioned by the whole
american people. Should the State, how
yer, determine to seek redress at the
lands of Congress, it comes before the
anne tribunal of the whole American peo-
lie, whether represented in the House or