The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-20
THE PUBLIC DEBT AND ITS LEGAL
RELATIONS.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND ITS LEGAL
RELATIONS.
| To tho Editor Of the Democrat:
The questions we are now discussing in Lou
| isiana are not new. They are as old az the or
ganization Of the Federal government. and
have divided the country into pafties under diff
| ferent names ever since the adoption oil the
/ Federal constitution At first the advocates OF
Capitalization or strong government wanted to
pattern after tho model of the British govern
ment, Alexander Hamilton. who was the intel
| lectual head Of this party believed there were
| but two ways Of governing people-by force
| or by corruption. He wanted strong consol-
dated government removed as far Us possible.
under popular form, from the control Of the
people. to be enforced by the bsyonet. He
wanted large public debt which he called
n public blessing" SO as to unite the money
power which exists In all societies with the for
tunes of the new government, and to be used
| AZ a means of corrupting the peoples repre-
| sentatives. Hence bis funding system to take
| ND the debts OF the old Confederation and Of the
several States. incurred la the war OF tho revo-
luton, and the establishment of the United
| States Bank with It's ramified branches In the
States based on the public debt John Sher-
| man is only Alexander Hamilton In miniature:
and what has been done by the Republican
| party since the war between the States Is only
copy OF the policy sought to be accomplished
by the first Federalists. Under their plan the
States In the new Union were to be little more
than departments Of the nation. or subordinate
political corporations. They lied In having
| their views incorporated In the plan
of the new government. but they have
never ceased to try to get. by construction,
and indirection what they failed to get openly
| ..ttt, M, Ia
OF the country. formulated by Thomas Jefferson
who became the great leader of the antagoniz
I IL party prevailed In the first struggle. and
established union of co equal sovereign States
| instead OF nation. 1t differed entirely from
| the model of the Federalists. and only differed
| from the old Confederation which was mere
| league offensive and defensive between the
States as absolute sovereigns. In this that for
| the purposes and objects common to all the
States, which were few as we'll as general. a
complete government was formed acting direct
y upon the individual citizen Of each OF the
States. thus giving more strength and efficiency
to the Federal head. bur In no wlse impairing
nat q b ae sde9s
knew They magniled and dlgniied
| the sovereignty Of each State by the aggregate
power OF the co-States, but never surrendered
a particle OF original sovereignty. But the
sappers and miners" as Jefferson called them.
were busy at work to undermine the fabric.
| The strong government party resorted to In
sidious construction: the Democracy met their
enemies ut every turn, and thwarted them as
| long az they stood true to principle. Adams
! fell: j. fferson rose And with various fortune
| the great contest between opposing schools OF
politics has been going on ever since. Names
have changed. but the distinguishing features
OF the original parties have remained. The
lions Of government not having changed. the
construction OF the powers Of the new govern.
ment becomes the dividing line. The crucial
test between the two parties ever since has been
this: Whatever constr Ictlon Of the constitution
takes power away from the States or the peo-
and eonrs # on the
archy; whatever construction leaves the power
with The States and the people. in doubtful
| inroads we're made In the political department
of the government when the Federalsts and
| afterwards their linea descendants. the Wings,
perverted the constitution to mean that they
| could do anything they deemed necessary to
promote the general welfsren not pro
mocracy contended that the plain mean
ing was that the general welfare was to
be promoted by the. use Of powers clearly
principles OF the constitution. Having as
sumed power by misconstruction. their
next step Yves to contend that everything was
Implied In the constitution necessary and
| proper" to carry the power into execution The
judicial department was next selected Tor their
operations. and Ia this field the enemies. Of
Democracy have been even more successful
The Supreme Court OF the United States, as a
5ae been ba qst bs n
was, like Alexander Hamilton.a man of splendid
abilities, but ike his coadiutor In the political
| field. he was a Federalst In politics and n mon
archist at heart. In all his opinions pronounced
from the bench In cases where questions
affecting the, nature, Of the Federal gov
it. could be raised In the remotest
degree. he never failed to disparage the powers
Of the States and exalt thu powers OF the Fed
/
framed the constitution the Federalists wanted
TO make his tribunal a supreme arbiter over
answered Mr.. Madison. we will confne It's iu-
risdiction to cases. so that In aftertimes the
states may not become the provinces and vas,
plausible construction has almost accomplished
the work intended from the first by the adher-
q the Ehg ses
and between state and citizsns of au-
other State mentioned in the article con-
were to be such as are determined by treaty or
| settled by war between sovereign States. But
t. remove all doubt, the States rights men ne Of
| demanded that this article should not be con-
| strued to authorize suit In lay 9r equity
adherenee s to States rights Il embodied IN tbe
eleventh amendment of the constitution. But
ingenuity has not failed to suggest expedients
tralized power by which this provision of the
constitu' ion. like many others that We're sug
gested for similar reasons. has been evaded
and rendered almost nugatory. No Federal
nudge has been bold enough to tolerate suit
directly against State. but they have taken an
officer of State charged with the
enforcement of some law of a State
In furtherance of its public policy.
and made him amenabe to Federal jurisdiction.
thus In effect striking down the sovereignty of
theState. The most notable case Of this kind.
was that Of Osborne vs. the United States Bank
reported In ninth Wheaton. The case was this:
The State Of Ohio passed a law imposing taxes
on branch of the Bank of the United States
located in that State, and Osborne was the off,
Ger ofthe State charged with the collection of
the tax. The bank took out an Injunction
against Osb )rne TO prevent the collection Of the
tax on the ground that the State law impaired
the franchise conferred by the government OF
the uniie ed States and to the shame Of the
judiciary. the jurisdiction was sustained and
me Injunction granted. 1t was said In this
Ease mat the State was not necessarily party.
because the officer being an individual wrong
aoec or trespasser, could alone be brought into
court. similar case in principle occurred a
Few years afterward, in the same State which
Mas even more monstrous. The legislature of