Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1876-07-29
COL. SAVAGE AND HIS OPINIONS.

COL. SAVAGE AND HIS OPINIONS.
During last week some curiosity was
excited by the announcement that Col.
Savage, of MeMinnville, was expected |
to make speech in this place. He
was invited to do so by three gentlemen
who supposed him to hold opinions
identical with their own; we hardlyim-
a, inc that they think so still. But the
attention of the public was further at
tracted by an informal announcement
that after the speech the company
assembled would be resolved into
mass meeting for the purpose of de-
wishing measures for carrying out the
principles to be enumerated by the
orator. Under these stimuli to pub
lie attention, it is not surprising that
an audience of perhaps 500 assembled
at the appointed time last Saturday,
especially as a good many country peo-
pie are usually in town on that day.
We hardly think that half of these
were of the same opinion, even with
the gentlemen who got up the affair,
nor do we believe that three could be
mustered who agreed entirely with the
speaker in the views he promulgated.
THE SPEECH.
We have not space to analyze the
whole speech; it was divided nearly
equally between the national debt and
the State debt, both of which were
pronounced to be illegally incurred,
and both it was contended should be
Immediately and totally repIdiated;
not that he accepted that word, he
maintained that these were unjust
debts, and that the refusal to pay them
was nothing but plain assertion of
just principle, while reputation could
only designate the refusal to pay
debt justly due.
The practical character which we
desire to give to these editorial articles
will prevent our noticing what he says
in reference to the Federal debt, as it
is not and cannot be at this time prac-
tically before the people. If it ever
should be presented practically before
the nation it would, we think, be dis
cussed at the point of the bayonet
rather than with such arguments as we
are in the habit of using; we therefore
limit our attention to his proposed
treatment of the State debt.
We have said already that he main
tains this to be no debt at all, and
therefore to be no concern of the peO-
pie of Tennessee, whether as regards
principle or interest. The argument
on which he grounds this opinion is
such that it is difficult to believe that
he, being a lawyer and an old State
rights Democrat, believes in its validity
himself lie alleges that whereas no
authority is given in the constitution of
the State to its legislature to issue
bonds while such authority isexpressly
granted to the Federal government, it
is as manifest that the people intended
to withhold this power from the State
government, as that it granted it to the
national legislature. This is the sum
and substance Of the argument.
The plain reply to this argument is
the statement of the rudimentary prin-
ciple of the United States constitu-
ton, that the States are sOvereignties,
and that their governments possess
all the attributes of sovereign power
which have not been withheld by ex-
press limitation. either in the form of
Limitation in the State constitution, or
in that of express concession to the
Federal government; that the Fed
eral government on the other hand
is a delegated authority, the creature
of the States, possessing only those
powers which have been expressly del
egated to it, that therefore the power
of issuing bonds had to be expressly
assigned to the Federal government,
or else be non-existent, but existed
without such designation in the State
governments By virtue of their inhe-
rent sovereignty. And this is a prin-
ciple so often asserted in the courts,
both State and Federal, that it is won
derful that lawyer of Col. Savage's
experience should be blind to it. Thus,
in the supreme court of our own State,
(Peck's reports p. 269.
1.-THE legislature of Tennessee like
the legislatures of all other sovereign
States can do all things not prohibited
by the constitution of this State, or of
the United States"
Aud again by Judge Turley, in the
case of Pope VS.. Deadrick & Humphrey
p.8.
THAT the State of Tennessee is a
sovereign and independent power ex-
cept so far as it is restrained by the
constitution of the United States, that
its legislature has unlimited power of
legislation except so far as it is re-
strained by the constitution of the
United States, aud the constitution of
the State of Tennessee has always
been held and never denied"
Again Briscoe VS.. Banks, of Ken
lucky.
1.-The Federal government is one of
delegated powers, and all powers not
delegated to it or inhibited to the
States, are reserved to the States or
people, IL Peters 26S.
Again in the Supreme Federal court
ON the authority of Chief Justice
fancy, in the case Ofthe Ohio Life In
suranee Company VS.. Deholt. DC How
ard, 428).
With the exception of the powers
surrendered by the constitution of the
United States, the people of the sew
eral States are absolutely sovereign
within their respective States"
The rulings we have quoted above
as laid down by the highest legal au-
thorities, both State and national, are
law; are just as much a part of the
supreme law of the nation as the orig
iual provisions of the constitution of
wh;eh they are the authoritative in