The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-06-26

|
more emphatic than his colleague in the
Cabinet, and his words could we'll be
adopted now to formulate the creed of
the democratic party. He used the fol-
lowing language:
chosen officers meet, and when without
violence and without demonstration Of
insurrection they undertake to conduct
the affairs of their political government
no soldiers can interfere.
"There are two very distinct firm lines
Of Elimination, which observed, will pro-
tect the machinery Of the Government
for the people to-day; that is, mat the
sole Intervention of the Federal power
within State authority shall be to sup
press violence, and that their Office af-
ter that shall not assume to 60 further
unless when invited by the supreme au-
thority of the State.
| What use is it to give the purse and
the sword to the House Of Commons if
the King or the President by military
power can determine what shall be the
constitution Of tho House of Commons
or the House ofCongress? And this is
what they fought for in England.
And for this reason the people of the
United States are justified in assuming
that the supreme civil power shall dom.
mate over the military, and that no
merging of them or interference with
them shall be permitted"
Now, Dir. President, shall we be de-
nounced simply because we plant our
selves, not only where the fathers of the
Republic stood, but where the great
lights of the republican party have de-
clared the only true constitutional posi-
tion can be found. Now, sir, l venture
to assert that underlying the whole ar.
gument on the other side are two assump-
tions: first, that the war has 80 devel-
oped the independent existence of the
Federal Government as distinguished
from the States, as to give it greater
power, larger influence, and more direct
interest i'll congressional elections than
it possessed before; second, that the
Administration, as the representative of
that party which elected it and in con-
troll Of the Federal machinery, is bound
to use that power and influence in the
protection of these interests. In other
words, that the privileges and preroga-
tives Of the States are to be obliterated,
not by force, but by the subtler though
not less destructive influences of the two
great national parties using the powers
OF the Federal government as weapons of
party warfare.
Now; I do not propose to make any
cons titutional argument on this subject
1t ls sufficient for me to say that hold
the form and character of our govern
nent to have been unaltered by the late
war, and that the mutual relations of the
General Government and the several
States of the Union remain precisely az
they we're when the union was formed.
l hold that the recent constitutional
amendments have wrought no change in
these relations and in these views. I AM
sustained by the language of the Su-
preme Court of the United States in the
case Of The Collector Us. Day, reported
in eleventh volume Wallace. In this
case, Justice Nelson, in delivering the
opinion of the court, used the following
language:
"The General Government and the
States, although both exist within the
same territorial limits, are separate and
distinct sovereignties, acting separately
and independently of each Other within
their respective spheres"
In the same decree the ensuing words
are used:
"Such being the separate and indepen-
dent condition of the States in our COM
plex system, as recognized by the Con-
stitutiOn, and the existence of which
is SO indispensable that without them the
General Government itself would disep-
pear from the family of nations, g."
maintain, therefore, that the Con-
stitution has not been changed in its es-
sential featy % by the late amendments,
and that it is therefore now what it was
before the war, 80 that when the country
demanded the preservation of the Union
by restoration of the States, it meant
such a Union and such States as the
Constitution recognized. Can any advo-
cate of strong government, which is
but another term for Capitalization, sup
pose for one instant that the founders of
our Republic contemplated or would
power by the Federal Government as
are claimed for it by the legislation we
are seeking to repeal7 Does any Senator
here believe that this is q SAFE whole
some condition of public affairs7 Put
ting aside all extreme theories of State
rights, does not every Senator recognize
the fact that one of the elements Of our
political safety has been the manner in
which local State interests have acted
and reacted within the States upon ma
tional politics, 80 that until Just before
the war we never have had great nation
all parties which divided the country be-
tween them simply on Federal issues.
Local Influences had always to be con-
sidert But if in the future we are TO
have only great national parties, in be-
half of one or the other of which the
Administration is to interfere direct
ly, We are u1 the high road to consoli-
dation even more dangerous because
mofe violent and variable Aan a recnp-
nized change in the Government.
My objection, therefore, to this legis-
lation, which the war called fol tn is not
its immediate danger. It is not the ac-
J tual Army which fear, or its direct in
, tiuence. But do most strenuously OBJ
ject to any legislation which affords any
excuse. or justification to the Govern
ment That il mas the right or interest in
any degree to interfere with the perfect
freedom Of elections. The roughness or
, even riot of an election is no greater than
any other violation Of peace; and no
. State in this Union is without ample
means of suppression. And if the State au
thorities are unable or unwilling to do their
duty, you have not now, you will not have
for generations to come, an Army strong
enough to take their place. It is better
so; better that in one or two great
States, there should be temporary turbu-
/ lence, confusion, than that in the whole
country there should BE military aespot-
ism. Congress has the right to decide