The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1879-09-19
state Rights not Modification.

Just now republican speakers and every
posto flee editor who attempts to express
an idea are engaged in the vain attempt OF
proving or rather asserting, for it cannot
be proved, that state rights as advocated
by the democracy is the same as secession
or notification. Doubtless they will sue
seed in making the more. ignorant OF their
party believe their assertions, Democrats
are familiar with the doctrine of state
rights, or, better term, home rule, but
that every reader of The ARGUS may
have a clear idea of the dual governments
of our republican system we make the
following extracts from the great speech
ofThurmau at Columbus. The speech is
too lengthy for us to print entire, but it is
the best presentation of the living issues of
the day that we have ever seen. Every
democrat should read it and place it in the
hands Of his republican neighbor. ln
stating the principles of state rights Judge
Thurman quotes Justices Chase and Mar
shall, and says:
We have in this country two govern
ments-the federal or national govern
ment, whichever term you prefer, deriving
all its powers from the constitution OF the
United States; and the state governments.
deriving all their powers from the state
constitutions. The nature of this system
was expressed with admirable brevlty by
Chief Justice Marshall delivering the
unanimous opinion of the Supreme court
of the United States in McColloch VS.. the
State of Maryland, 4, Wheaton, 40. He
said: I'm America the powers of sover-
eighty are divided between the govern
ment of the union and those of the states
They are each sovereign with respect to
the objects committed to it, but neither Is
sovereign with respects to the objects
committed to the other" In the same
opinion, page 405, speaking OF the general
government, he said:
This Government is acknowledged by
all to be one of enumerated powers. The
principle, that it can exercise only the
powers granted to it, would seem too
apparent to have required to be enforced
by all those arguments which its enlight-
ened friends, while it was depending be-
fore the people, found it necessary to urge.
The principle is now universally admitted,
But the question respecting the extent OF
the powers actually granted, is perpetual
iy arising. and will probably continue to
arise as long as our system shall exist.
In Texes VS.. White 7, Wallace, 726
Chief Justice Chase, delivering the opin-
ion of the Supreme Court said: But the
p,rpetuity and indissolubility of the Unior
by no means implies the less Of distinc
and individual existence, or the right o
self-goverDment by the States. Under
the articles of Confederation each State
retained its sovereignty, freedom and in
dependence, aud every power, jurisdiction
aud right not expressly delegated to tht
United States. Under the constitution
though the powers Of the States werr
much restricted, still all powers not dele
gated to the United States, nor prohibited
20 the States are reserved TO the State
respectively or to the people.
Not only, therefore, can there be n
loss of separate and independent autonom
to the states, through their union unde
the constitution, but it may be not unrea
sonably said that the preservation of tn
States. and the maintenance of their gov
ernments, are as much within the desig
of the constitution as the preservation O
the Union and the maintenance of th
national government. The constitution
in all its provisions, locks to an indestruc
tible Union, composed of indestructibI
states.
You thus see, my friends, that accorC
ing to the highest authority. the rights {
the states are as indestructible, if our sys
TEN of government be preserved, as ar
the rights OF the federal government; tina
the one is just as sacred as the other: an
that he who assaults the plain rights {
the states.is lust as much an enemy OF on
system of free institutions as is he VIII
assails the just powers Of the Federal GOV
eminent
Senator Thurman then proceeds to sho
that State rights--as understood by tn
democracy-have no connection with nu
LITIGATION, as follows:
Now, mark it, my friends, the dJctrir
OF state rights, or 10 other words, loo
self government, for which the democrat
commended, ia wholly different from Il
doctrine of qualification or secession. IL
democracy OF the north never believed
either of those doctrines; they never b
lleved IN the right of qualification or sece
sion. And until the breaking out of tt
civil war | believe it may be truly affirmt
that large majority of the people of ii
southern states were also opposed to tho
doctrines, 1t is true that when the WI
broke out, almost every southern ma
took sides with his section. That was Il
natural consequence of such strife, whiC
overwhelmed for the time almost ever
dictate OF sober reason. But whatevt
may have been the opinions of the soutf
ern people before the war. no candid ma
can deny, no honest man will deny, tina
the southern people have abandoned tn
doctrines of notification and secession 70,
ever, They have accepted the result
the war as determining that no state ha
right to nullify the valid laws of cor
gress, and no state has right to seced
from the Union. 1t is therefore the bale
est hyDocricy or the most deplorabe ig
norance to pretend that there is any dar
ger OF the revival of the doctrine of secei
sion"
On military interference with election
the distinguished statesman of Ohio
even more powerful, and indeed the who
speech is of the same unanswerable qua
itv