The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1879-10-30
ABsURDITIRs or PARTISAN.
SHIP.

ResOlUed, That the maintenance in
violate of the rights of the State, and
especially the right of each State to
order and control it's own domestic in
stitutions according to its own judg-
meBt exclusively, is essential to that
balance Of powers on which the per-
lection and endurance of our political
fabric depend; and we denounce the
lawless invasion by armed force of the
soil of any State or Territory, no mat
ter under what pretext, as among the
gravest of crimes.
II the Democracy of the South, as
asserted by Senator Gordon and the
rest, deem the right OF secession an
exploded heresy by gun
powder-this excerpt from the Repub-
lican platform of 1860, approved as 1t
was with all his heart by Abraham
Lincoln and constantly asserted by
him and Douglas in their memorable
contest in 1859, will be accepted as
final by the Democracy of the North.
''Absolute national sovereignty which
Conkllng proclsims as the right OF the
central government, really signifies
nothing more than this. 1t is only
sovereign to the extent that the Con-
stitution invests it with absolutlsm,
and lis sphere of supreme power is
sharply and clearly defined and linn
tied. 1t would thus seem, since
no State asserts the right t. with
draw at pleasure from the union,
and since Democracy accepts the
States rights platform of Abraham
Lincoln, and then accepts the hard
money philosophy of Bayard and Til
den, that the practical, real difference
between the Republican party n its
greatest purity and the Democratic
party of to-day must be very little.
Only two years ago, in the very face of
the stupendous ConkliDg's recent dec
laration, above quoted, and In the face
of the fact that his copyists assert that
there are no Estates rights" and that
the central government is an absolut-
ism, Mr.. Hoar declared, Garfield, Ev-
ar;s and Hayes approving, that no
power except that of each State could
inquire into State election. The
Federal government, In its inquisi-
tions, could not 60 behind the face of
the returns from Florida. This opir-
ion, from which Conkling did not then
dissent, made Hayes President, and
yet Mr.. Conkling finds it conven-
lent, at this juncture, to stul-
tify himself and accept the
ory which, approved two years ago,
would have made Tilden President.
If the Republican party of to-day
would accept the Republican platform
of 1860, as defined by Seward, Lin
coin and Chase, the founders and tru
est and wisest leaders and philosophers
of the organization, there would ex-
ist, now that the bayonet has ex-
truded secession, no difference as
to theoretical States or Union
rights between the two great par
ties of the United States, and they
would be forced to discover practical
issues. Then, too, sectional aspects of
partisanship, which cost the S1uth in
calculable miseries, poverty and mis-
fortunes, would disappear, and the
presidential contest of 1880 would not
be determined when it is determined
that the North is stronger and richer
than the South. Nobody asserts In
the South the absolute sovereignty of
States, and none, except Conkling,
proclaim the absolutism of the
Union. The States, as Hayes and
his Cabinet have confessed, and
as the Constitution provides, mu t
call for troops before each lnvs-
sion of State for any purpose, and
surely there are few honest, thought
full Republicans accepting Conkling's
assertions of Federal despotic power.
Hayes, when his term began, as Grant
advised, ordered Federal troops out of
the South, and simply because they
had no. business there, and were sent
thither in plain violation of the organic
law of the Federal Union. Is it not
extraordinary that In the face of this
primal law of union, aud in the face of
the plain deduction made insthe Re-
publican platform of 1860, as above
quoted, that great Republican.newsp
pers of to-day, taking the cue from
Conkling, declare that the Ohio elec-
tion is not only fatal blow to latu-
lent fat money but to ''the heresy of
State Rights" when. in point of fact,
there is no difference of opinion
on this score between the South
ern Democracy of 1879 and the
authors of the Chicago Republican
platform of 1860. Is it not quite pos
sible, before Congress adjourns; that
the money and the States rights ques-
tions will be eviscerated from texts of
partisanshIp and others substituted
about which there are profounder diff
ferences to exert profounder influences
upon the practical and commercial for
tunes of the whole countryl Very GER
tainly, If Conkling may have his way,
Beck and q few Democrats like him,
cooperating, and the solid North be
precipitated against the solid South, as
now proposed, the South will be first
advertised into bsrbarism aud the
North and the world believing us to
be barbsrians, these States will be
nothing more than ''reservationsn fol