Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1879-10-22
THE FALLACY OF estate RIGHTS.''
James G.. Jenkins Speech Reviewed
by an Independent Democratic

From the Chicago Times, October 10.
There is Daniel come to Judgment.
His name is Jenkins, and he is candi-
date for governor of Wisconsin. At
Madison, the other day, he made a
speech to an assembly of people which
an enthusiastic reporter says was the
greatest and most enthusiastic meeting
seen in this city for many a year." In
that speech he "laid himself out" on
the subject of state rights; went back
TO the beginning; dug down to the bot
tom; and brought up and exhibited to
the admiring multitude the foundation
the very bedrock, as it were-of our
constitutional system. That is, he fiat
tered himself that he did.
To the consciousness Of Mr.. Jenkins,
"there appears to be growing up in this
country conflict touching the nature
and form of our government "-he
means our constitution. Tomost people
who have lived in this country some
time, it has appeared that such conflict
was grown up many years ago into much
greater strength than it exhibits now, or
is ever likely to exhibit again. In
Washington's reign, it was strongly
manifested in the Pennsylvania rebel
lion against the whisky tax which the
national government put down by a
strong arm. In Jefferson's reign, it was
manifested in the Burr conspiracy to
sunder the national dominion and set up
an independent southwestern sovereign
ty. In Jackson's reign it was manifested
in the South Carolina attempt to nullify
the laws of the land by virtue of an
assumed South Carolina sovereignty.
In Lincoln's reign, it eliminated in the
great state-sovereignty rebellion, which
the national power put down by the
strong arm with as little respect for
estate rights" as was manifested by the
government of Washington in dealing
with the Pennsylvania whisky rebellion,
or by the government of Jackson in deal
ing with the South Carolina rebellion
of 1888.
It seems to be the opinion of Mr..
Jenkins that this conflict between the
opposing forces of nationalism and fed
eraIism originated as a consequence of
the development, after the separation
from Britain, of two schools of states
men, one led by Alexander Hamilton,
and the other by " the immortal Jeffer-
son." But this is to take very super
fetal view of the fact. In reality, it
was but prolongation of opposing social
forces that had their origin in conditions
that appeared in this country about
century and half before Hamilton and
"the immortal Jefferson" were born.
The separation of the American colonies
from Britain was an accident rather than
a design. The union of the thirteen
distinct political societies in one political
society was necessary to the continuance
of their political independence, yet it
was step which they were not fitted to
take. Their situation was that of thir-
teen distinct organic societies, which,
for more than century, had been
growing into different characters, by
reason Of wide differences of religion,
commercial interests, etc., suddenly
severed from the maternal nation, and
confronted by the political necessity Of
establishing a new nation before q COM
mon feeling and sentiment of nationality
had superseded the characters of diver
gency which inclined them against such
a step. Without the feeling of nation
ality, no people can form a true nation,
and this feeling, at the time of the
separation from Britain, existed hardly
at all in America. It had to grow, and
in its growth it had to overcome the old
character and feeling of separatism
which had been the most distinctive
mark Of the colonies for a century and
half. It's growth, under the conditions,
must be slow. But it began to grow
Immediately after the separation, and
kept on growing, in spite of the
persistent efforts Of political Bour-
bons like Luther Martin, Robert
Yates, "the immortal Jefferson" Mr..
Calhoun, Mr.. Buchanan, Mr.. Jefferson
Davis, and the Confederate brigadiers,
to prevent it. It is stronger to-day than
on any previous day. 1t will be strong
er tomorrow than it is to-day. Every
moment which time adds to the historic
life of the American nation will
strengthen the national feeling and
character of the American people, and
correspondingly weaken and obliterate
the old colonial sentiment of Separation,
the only basis of the absurd state
sovereignty school of opinion of which
the immortal Jefferson" was only a
somewhat earlier disciple than his name
sake, the immortal j. Davis.
Mr.. Jenkins restates the threadbare
hypothesis of the federalist Bourbons in
the following words:
The federal constitution is a grant of
power to the United States government;
that as to all powers not thereby granted or
prohibited, they are reserved to the states
or to the people, and that, therefore, the
constitution of a state is not a grant of
power, for the power existed in the state
and with its people before and independently
of any constitution; but is a limitation
upon an existing power.
This, he says, is no new doctrine, but
is doctrine which has been held by all
the courts, as well as by all the states
men fr om the immortal Jefferson down
to the Okolona statesman.
That the power of the national governs
ment are granted powers implies a
grantor of them, in whom the powers
granted resided anterior to the grant.
Who was the grantor? Obviously, the
grantor must have been either the sew
eral states comprised by the instrument
of grant, or the people comprised by
that instrument. If the states are the