The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-05-28

LS,aa Z IJESD Z MORNIN'
TIE ECHARACRERlOF oUR GOVERN.
81: s1s sdENT.. g 'tli.l 4.
JUDGE oULRs LECTURE AT R1cHMoND
Last NTGET,As TO WHETHER
as THE LATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMEND.
iEMENTs HAD CHANGED THE CHARACTER
OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND CONVERTED
: ,THE PEOPLE OF THE UNION INTO A, Ma.
i TIONyIN TIE PROPER SENSE OF THAT
IyYoRD-A, FINE AUDIENCE AND INTER
EsTING ADDREss-pR COMMENT PERSONS
PRESENTS c., &c.
/. ffs. - q. 80 ---.L-.-. = t,i}. ~ 81
S. Professors Davies and Curry, of the Law
School, have supplemented their regular
lectures by calling to their assistance distin-
guished gentlemen OF the legal profession,
who have generously and ably instructed
the young gentlemen on subjects OF which
these volunteer lecturers had made spe-
cialty. The interest manifested In the
school by the profession is very gratifying.
Our city possesses exceptianal facilities for
legal instruction, and the wisdom OF the
trustees seems already yindicated by the
success Of this last years experiment.
The announcement in the Dispatch that
Judge Ould would lecture on last night at
tracted very intelligent and appreciatiye
audience. We noticed among the visitors
Governor Holiday, Hon. w. ". Henry,
General Field, Messrs. Gregory, Buford,
Gordon, Johnston, Williams, Davenport,
Darlington, and other prominent citizens,
and.a number OF ladies, who listened With
undated interest to the eloquent orator and
expressed themselves as highly delighted.
The students were out in full force, and
may count themselves most fortunate in be-
ing permitted to sit at the feet of one whose
PROFESSIONAL SKILL AND OFFICIAL POSITIONS
have made him the friend and coDfidant OF
our most distinguished statesmen and law
yers. -
After BRIEF and feicitous Introduction,
referring to remark of Chief-Justice Chase,
he entered into discussion OF the subject
whether the late constitutional amendments
had essentially changed the character OF our
Government and converted the people OF
the Union into nation, in the proper sense
OF that word. BY very mastery. analysis
OF the.amendments, confirming his reason
ings by abundant quotations from decisions
OF the Supreme Court, the Judge estab-
lished most conclusively the negative OF the
proposition presented as q thesis.
The constitutional argument should be
published widely as a corrective OF much
error of opinion and constructions.
He said, on the occasion OF one OF his judi
cial visits to Richmond, the Chief Justice said
TO him that, although in his early political
life he had been believer in the State-rigbts'
theory, yet he thought the recent amend
ments to the Federal Constitution, and es-
pecialIy the last two, had essentially changed
tfe character Of our Government, made q
new order Of American citizens, and con"
yerted the people OF the Union into nation.
Judge Ould said that although he knew
that these amendments were very radical,
vet that at the time he did not concur in the
conclusion OF the Chief Justice, and that
subsequent examination and reflection had
more fully satisfied him that it was erro-
neous.
THE THREE LAST AMENDMENTS.
he said, in substance, that the three last
amendments were strange revelation, both
in the light they threw on the past and their
intrinsic significance; that our fathers found
or fancied danger in almost every provision
OF the Constitution except that in relation
to the power OF amendment, which seems 10
have passed unchallenged I; that our wonder
is increased when we scrutlnze the ar
ticle which allows amendments, in that
while the original Constitution was re-
uuired to be submitted to the people OF
the respective States, it was not neces-
sary to do so as to amendments which
could be adopted by requisite number
of State Legislatures. He could see no 'eX-
planation for this, jealous as our fathers
were of the rights OF the States, except that
the trainers Of the Constitution did not be-
lieye that the right OF amendment included
any which related to an entirely new sub
iect, and at the same time essentially changed
the theory OF our government. without
deciding the Question, he doubted whether
the power extended to q case where the
proposed amendment changed funda-
mental principle, and especially whether
the Supreme Court would sustain an amend
ment adopted by three fourths OF the Legis-
latures which gave the power to the Fede-
raj Government to determine who should
be voters in the States. He held that the
supreme power or sovereignty OF q
State resided in its electors-that
in the political sense they were the
State, and that, therefore, any amendment
which diyested State OF its exclusive con-
troll over suffrage destroyed the sovereignty
OF the State. lie held that State could
not alien its sovereignty by the action OF its
Legislature, il at all. Moreover, he held
that it was the basis of our Federal system
that the Union must be composed OF repub.
lican States, and that republican form IS
guaranteed by the Constitution to each
State, and that State could not be republi-
can If the power of determining who It's
electors or voters should be were taken
away. Judge Ould, therefore, while deny
ing that the fourteenth or fifteenth amend.
ment guve the power OF regulating suffrage
to Congress, doubted whether, II such were
the fact, any such amendment which struck
down the republican character OF the States
could, at least without the consent OF the
people OF all the States, be made part OF
our organic law. sa' - - ="
RELATIONS OF THE STATES TO EACH OTHER
Taking up the effect Of the war upon the
relations OF the States to each other, he said
the EXTREMIST advocates OF the nationa
theory never contended that theWar changed
the character OF our Government. All they
claimed was that the Government was justi
fed in the use>of powers not specifically
granted in the Constitution as means o.
preservation in q great emergency. While
the war decided the issue between the Unior
and the seeding States when it closed, the
seeding States were remitted to their right
under the Constitution as we'll as to theil
obligations. ~
THE sLAUGHTER-HOUsE CASES.
After reyerting to the difference in th'
nature of the first twelve amendments ant
the last three, as well as to the difference o
the causes OF their birth, Judge Ould refer
red to the celebrated Slaughter-house case