The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-01-02

tween the two. The 6rst-which We main
tain as the true One-is that of positive con-
fOrmity to the Constitution, the second is the
negative one of non. contradiction by it. We
hold that where the Constitution is silent,
that is where there is nothing expressly
stated, or fairly implied, there is no power to
act. Mr.. Shanks holds that it is not neces-
sary to produce warrant, that judicatory
has discretion determined only by express
prohibitions.
Now concerning this theory which We
steadfastly oppose, there are many things
which may be said. If We mistake not it is
thoroughly discredited by the following con-
siderations:
l. H proposes most singular and incOn-
vsnient mode of making a Constitution. We
can understand how and why the several
States in forming Federal Government
should declare that "the powers not dele
gated to the United States by the Constitu-
ton, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved TO the States respectively, or to the
people of il" This is matter between two
governmentS-the States on the one hand,
and the United States on the other. But did
any one ever hear of a State which set
about to make a Constitution, and when it
came to the distribution of powers, arranged
it after the fashion here propOunded by Mr..
Shanks? What would be thought of the
DRY of the Constitution of Virginia, for ex-
ample, which should run on this wise-"This
and that power to the Legislative depart
ment; so much to the Judiciary; so and SO
to the Executive. But in addition to all
these there are certain Inherent pOsVsrs
belonging to each ?" Does not our common
sense tell US that constitutions are not framed
under that idea, but under the intent that no
powers are to be considered further valid
than as they are authorized by the grants
therein enumerated? Our whole Church
government, except so far as exercised d.
rectly by the people in the choice of their
rulers, is lodged in our several judicatOries.
Is it reasonable to suppose that when our
fathers formed this government they ar
ranged it upon any other plan than that Of
making complete distribution of powers to
the session, the Presbytery, the Synod and
the General Assembly, If we look into
our standards we find that they formally set
themselves to make a full statement of what
belongs to each. Can any one give reason
why, if they enumerated any powers, they
should not enumerste all? Is there any
foundation in common sense for having it
understood that after sll there were certain
''iRhsrent rights, not included, and to be
held in reserve for such use as occasion
might require? If there are any such, it
would be an important inquiry where the re-
serve does actually INTERPRETATION it would
not 90 back to the body of. believers where
all of it primarily (primO actU) belongs. The
view above presented is cor 6rmed if we con-
slider
2. That this notion of " inherent rights, +"
and apart from the express statements of the
Constitution, inUOlUes complete uncertainty
and confusion. Any one of our judicatOrieS
may plead it in justification of multitude of
acts; and in regard to the same question
one may decide it this way, another that,
each pleading its inherent rights" Who
is to decide Mr.. Shsnks seems to have
felt the force of this difficulty, and the only
relief be could find under his theory was that
while every court, considered apart from
any constitutional restrictions, undeniably
possesses" the inherent power to appoint q
Commission, "snd may exercise it at dis
erection" the only check upon it is its ''re-
sponeibility to God" Responsibility to
God" is indeed supreme consideration, and
we do not deny that there is "discretion" "
given in some things; but with the carefully
guarded terms of our Constitution before US,
it can hardly fail to be seen that its trainers
felt it of great Importance to provide in gen
eral for some responsibility to man also, and
We judge that, after going so fully into q
positive statement as to the powers belonging
to each one of our courts, they were not the
men who would leave open another source of
power so utterly vague, and liable to SO much
abuse and confusion. We think they did
certainly act upon the well known rule COM
mon to the organic law of free governments,
that the specification of powers is evidence
against the grant or possession of powers
not specified.
On the ground then of these two good rea-
sons, are not those who hold the view We
maintain entitled to the Orclusion that the
powers not expressly or implicitly granted to
our Church courts are not possessed by them;
that the theory Of brother ShankS is unrea-
sonable dangerous and full of confusion
1t will be next in place to show that what We
are now asked to accept as the settled doc
trine of cur Church, has been in fact erplic
itly disereditsd and repudiatsd,
CoRREoTIoN.-In the editorial article on
Commissions. last week. il il said that Church