The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-03-13
CALHOUNISM.
A Splendid Article from Prof. j. L. d.
Curry, Ii. D.. of Richmond.
From, the RELIGIOUS Herald.

&'N'' WV NsSN'S'Se ~~S'NN'NN
The editorial colloquy betwixt the
Religious Herald and the Examiner and
Chronicle, in reference to the use of CAL
houn on Government, as textbook in
the University of Georgia, has led to a
discussion on "Calhounism," and the
latter paper, with praiseworthy fairness,
has opened its columns to both sides.
"Calhounism," rs defined theory of
government, is not as precise and specific
as is desired for question for logical or
historical debate. 1t is easy to put up
man of straw and knock him down; and
hence, in the attempted overthrow Of
"Calhounism," there have been many
positions which no one controverts, and
others which no one defends. Mr.. Cal
houn was pre- eminently the defender of
the Federal theory of our government as
contradistinguished from Centralism or
Consolidation, and if that be what is
meant by "Calhounism," there are many
who are not willing to let judgment go
by default. The matter is of the gravest
import, stretching beyond local or party
interests.
Some things will probably be conceded
by the Examiner and its allies. Prior to
the formation of the present government,
the States then existing were sovereign
and Independent communities. The
Colonies were separate, had no common
legislature, no common judiciary, no
common army. They had no direct po-
litical connection with one another. BY
the Declaration of Independence they
threw off allegiance to Great Britain, and
each became, as afterwards by treaty of
peace recognized, a free and independent
State. The Articles of Confederation,
which preceded our present government,
declare that each State retains "its SOW
ereignty, freedom and independence"
The Convention of 1887, which made the
Constitution, was composed of delegates
appointed by the States, and the Consti-
tuition was submitted to each State for its
separate ratification. In point of fact,
each State adopted, ratified and con-
frmed the Constitution, thus binding its
own citizens. No one has ever hinted
that the action of one State had any
binding authority on any citizens other
than its own, or controlled, in any meas
ure, except morally, the decision of the
other States. No power, or pretence of
power, existed, or was claimed, to compel
the States origii to enter the govern
ment. The Gene Government was the
work of the people of the several States,
acting in their separate, sovereign char
acter, as distinct political communities.
So far from the Constitution proceeding,
or deriving vitality or existence, from the
people of the United States as a unit, no
such political body ever existed, or ever
can perform single political act, without
q radical change of our whole system.
AS the result of the ratification of the
Constitution by the States, each acting
for itself, the Union, or the present Gen
eral Government, came into existence.
This Government was not the primary
social or political relation of those who
made it. 1t is the creature of the States
which antedated it aud gave it being.
The States, as parties, leach agreeing
with each and all the rest" constituted
or ordained government, and entrusted
that government with limited powers for
specified objects. The Government thus
created hes no original powers, none by
virtue of the fact that it is q government.
It's powers are all derivative, and the
Constitution contains the measure and
limit of its delegated powers. So much
power was delegated IS was thought to be
beneficial and necessary for the public
and common good to be exercised by
common government The powers not
delegated are, from great caution, in ex-
press terms, reserved reserved not only
as against the General Government as
whole, but against each department of
that government and against the CO.
States, the high contracting parties to
this Solemn league and covenant" So
jealous were our fathers of their liberties,
the granted powers were carefully emu
merated, and the exercise of any power
outside the grants or limitations is a
usurpatiou and nullity. Mr.. Calhoun
said, and none will gainsay, "The boun-
dary between the reserved and the dele
gated powers marks the limits of the
Union. The States are united to the ex-
tent of the latter, and separated beyond
that limit" ga State is, at all times, so
long as its proper position is maintained,
both in and out Of the Union in, for all
constitutions. purposes, and out, for all
others in, to the extent of the delega-
ted powers, and out, to that of the re-
served" (See opinion of Waite, G. J. in
Cruikshank's Case, 90 u. S. Reports
To preserve the equilibrium betwixt the
reserved and delegated powers, to main
tain the distribution as at first agreed on,
is the most perplexing problem of our
political system.
When a bill is introduced into either
House df Congress, the question which
confronts at the threshold is: Is it con-
stitutional? is it within the constitutional
competency of the Federal legislature? !?
is it covered by the granted or necessarily
implied powers? If these questions are
answered in the negative, then no argu-
ments of expediency or necessity can
legitimately be adduced in favor of the
measure. Said the Supreme Court in
| 1870, i'll the case of the Collector vs..
Day: "The Government of the United
States can claim no powers which are not
granted to it by the Constitution, and the
powers actually granted must be such as
are expressly given, or given by necessary
implication"
thus far there is little difference of
opinion among constitutional lawyers or
well-educated statesmen. The question
which has divided statesmen and writers
on constitutional law, is as to the extent
of the delegated powers, as to the judge
in the last resort, and as to political her
mcneutics, or the principles of interpre-
tation and construction. In the case of
the exercise of doubtful or clearly un-
granted powers, who is to decide finally ?
Neither Mr.. Calhoun nor any States
Rights man ever denied the supremacy
of the Federal Government, within its
constitutional sphere, and the duty of
the citizen, in such case, to render
proper respect and obedience. They
held that the State, to which primary
allegiance was due, in ratifying the Con-
stitution, had so pledged the obedience
of its citizens. To charge Mr.. c. with a