The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1879-12-24
LOCAL SELF-GOyERNMENT.
Does It Depend in Any Manner Up,n the
Maintenance Of State Rights?
Another Strong Paper From the Author Of
Decentralization" Recently Pub
lished in the Sentinel.

10 the EulLOr OF tQe SeHtluel-
sIR-The Chicago Times, In a recent issue,
relates part of private conversation held
with Senator Gordon, of Georgia, in which he
said he proposed to do all he could to induce
Southern senators and representatives to
adopt the policy of silence upon the question
OF State rights, giving as his reasons for so
doing the fact of Northern distrust of South
ern people, and the prevailing Northern idea
that Estate rights" means secession. The sem
ator further said: II believe thoroughly In
the right of local selfgovernment. think
the people of all sections believe in it, and that
not one State would surrendera single right
for which would contend. Why would not
have 1t spoken OF now, Is because II Is made
equivalent to the dead and buried issue of
secession"
Whereupon the Times, after an approval
of the senator's resolution OF silence, gays:
-There is some manifest confusion in the sem
stor's mind as to the meaning of the State
rights doctrine, which, he thinks, the people
readers that the American people of all Sec
every part of the globe, have a Profound
thorough, and eminentiy practical belief in
the right OF local seif-government, goes on to
define the difference between it ard State
rights, and gives what the Times believes to
be the Northern idea of local self-goyernment
as follows:
'sThere is no conflict or controversy, nor
ground for any, between Americans at the
North and Americans at the South respecting
the right to local selI-government. The only
controversy is with respect to Its meaning.
Southern POLITICIANS haO1tually employ The
words local self-government' aud State
rights as il each contained the meaning of
the other. Northern men do not SO under
stand them. The idea of the senator from
Georgia is that local self government depends
on the maintenance of rights pertaining to
the particular corporations called States,
and that the destruction of the former would
be involved in the destruction or modification
OF the latter. History does not teach, and
the Northern people do not SO believe. As
understood by them, local self-gOvernment is
content Of the general polity OF the Ameri-
90 mix n M N iG
in the seif-governing township. The county
organization is another manifestation OF it
under the general polity of society for the pur-
poses of local self-government, and such
the general polity. The so-called States, aiso
are political corporations, organized under the
purposesof local self-government, and derive
all their corporate pc Ideal rights from the
general polity of the nation. The fundamen-
tai difference between the nights OF these po-
ntical corporations and the rights of the gen
erai society, or nation, is that the former are
derived from. and are manifestation OF, the
sovereignty of the latter. This is what the
North understands by local self-government
1t is not i'm manent in the corporation called
a State, or the corporation called a county, or
the corporation called a township, but only In
the supreme organic people. In opposition TO
this supreme pc 1ple there Is no right of any of
these subordinate corporations even to exist,
and the nation may put them out OF existence.
not be destroyed by such abolition of the pres
ent local agencies for the nation, of whose
miracle the polity which is an expression of
the character of the race shold be changed,
would) provide for its exercise by other local
There are few Northern men who do not be-
Eeve as reiigiously as the senator says he be-
Heves in the right of local self-govern meDt;
there are fewer Northern men who do not
totally reject the senator's notion that local
seIf-governInenti is right inherent in the par
ticuar corporation or group of people called a
State. In the Northern view no political
right is inherent in any but sovereign socte-
tv rights of local COMBINATIONS.
organized groups of that society, are
not inherent, but derivative-rights delegated
In trust by the whole to It's local members for
local purposes"
In our humble judgment the above enuncia-
ton of the Times is both unsound and untrue
-unsound as theory of local se1f-govern-
ment and Stale rights, and untrue as pretend
ing to be the prevail ing idea entertained by
Northern men concerning local self govern
nent and state rights. 10 our mind 1t pre-
sents political heresy as dangerous and
startling as the doctrine of secession, and If it
be true that majority of Northern men dOtn
reality entertain the Times notion upon this
subject, then indeed have we abundant reason
to despair of the Republic. Reduced to plain
English, the Times affirms the following prop
ositlons as the settled opinion of the North
/. The States, like counties and townships
are only corporations organized by theWhole
people, nation, for the purpose of local
2. All the rights of the States are derived
from the nation, or the whole people OF the
B. The States exist only by the grace of the
l. The destruction of the States would not
necessarily involve the destruction of the
right of local self government, as it is probable
the nation would provide for its exercise by
other local agencies.
ceived opinion held by Americans that the
people is the source of all power in our Gov
ernment-thatf with 1t resides entire SOW
ereignty-that IL may abolish all constitu-
tions, destroy all the States, all the counties,
and all the townships; may change It's entire
form OF government, doing away, IL 1t please,
with the Republic and establishing in ttsr
sny other form OF government in its pleasure
In its sovereign capacity II may do all this,
andaf this is what the Times means, then we
agree with it. Under this view of the matter,
secession itself would become legal, for II the
eoP It's rsht to do the To psh
these results, however, without absolute war;
there would have to be great changes wrought
In the constitution OF the Union, brought
:. about through the consent OF the people &C
cordlng TO the established mode of procedure.
Butthis isnot the question before us. The
present question is what may lawfully be
done under the existing constitution Of the
states, and we understand the Times to predi-
{ cate its proportions upon this view OF the
ultimate soSereia nifty Of the people set forth
In our Declaration OK Independence:
favor an imperial strong. central govern
ment Is that states are mere political corpora
tions. like counties and townships, organized
the con venience ofIocai self government. and
like them destitute of any Inherent rights,
such as appertain 70 sovereign and indie
pendent people; that all their rights are de-
rivative from the nation or Union; that the
nation, If 1t chooses to do SO, .'may put them
: ont OF existence
: So far as counties and townships are con-
.cerned, we know they may be modified, and
even "put out of existence by the States, for
they are the creatures Of the States. over
Law. But where In the constitution Of the
United States L the authority thus to deal
with a9tatef Under the doctrine held by the
Times Name, New Hampshire and Vermont
might be consolidated so as to makeronly one
State. thus efcusing the services of four sena !.
. Tors Massachusetts,, Rhode Island and Con-
nec1icut might be treated In the same man
ner. 1t rniaht suit Congress TO wipe out New
jersey, Delaware and Maryland, and give
them to Pennsylvania and Virginia Do the
Northern people subscribe 70 this notion OF
State r1gnts? -
But, says the Times, States are but local
political cor poratiens, and 'all rights of local
corporations arenotlnherent, but derivative."