The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1880-01-17
BUSHNELL ON STATE RIGHTS.

b. is not in the habit Of 0btruding himself up
on public notice in this manner unless he has
something to say, wherefore there was natural
" yood deal of curiosity to see what he had
to say that was PEW about state rights,
while our space will no. permit us to copy
the article in full yet having read it with som,
cSre, we shall attempt briefly to state its sub
stance.
Mr. Bushncll starts out with a sneer al
smatterers and "neophytcS" who have attempt
ed to handle so recondltc a subject, and says
their Fundamental mistake" has been in as
Stunning that "the states" were the only original
parties 10 our present federal compact or con
situton whereas ii was wholly the work OF
the people of the United States in their sOver'
clgn capacity and not of the states He ar
CUES this point at length and displays good
deal of historical research. He describes the
looscncss and nclliCicncy of the old contcdcr.
alton; traces the first attempt to remedy It's
defects IN the convention called at Annapolis
and how that gave way to the fuller convcn-
ton that subsequently met in Philadelphia.
Then tells how the latter convention disregard
cd the object for which 1t was called, which
was to amend the articles of confederation, and
formed All entirely new instrument called n
constitution" which was not as the articles
Of confederation were, submitted to the legis-
latures for ratification but was submitted for
adoption to conventions Of the states elected
by the people" though why a convention
more Immediately represented the people than
a Legislature elected by the people is not abso
lutely clear,
However, thus far Mr.. D. entrenches on no
ground that is at this day in dispute. We be
levc all our publiclsts now admit that the con
was the work of the people and that
its opening sentence, that 1--WE the People of
the United States do ordain and estab
lIsh, &c, is no lie. But admitting this point,
must we accept as pertinent Mr. Bushnelis
Teyt question, What then becomes of state
rights" Does that fact or the next to which
be calls attention, that it is made the duty of
lie United States "to guarantee to each state a
republican form of government or the next
act, that it requires vote Of two-thirds Of the
representatives Of the people" to call a con
'ention TO amend the constitution, &c, &c, |
necessarily ebliteratc state rights Mr.. Bush.
lell having got INTO this train of reasoning
,oes on refining and refining until at last he
wholly wipes out the states and whites them
own to mere municipal corporations, rs fol.
OWs:
There Is no sovereignty at all in any state,
or the reason that every state is political cor
,oraton, organized and chartered by National
uthOrty. Not single state exists by virtue
4 its own rights. Every state government is
ut the legitimate issue Of Federal parentage.
he political corporation dcnominated state
3 but a manifestation of pollty called in com
non parlance local selt:government An
ther feature Of this same pollty is seen in the
ounty, another in township organization. and
he rights of the state, of the county, of the
ownship do not exist IN opposition, but IN
ubordinatIon to the National Government.
here is no right OF a school district but as a I
part Of township, nor of town
hip but as a corporate part Of county, nor
{ q county but rs corporate part of "A state,
nd the existence of all these IN a corporate |
apacity IL but u manifestation of National ,
overegnty. r
While there is no doubt that such sweeping =,
exclusions are the logical sequence of Mr.. II
lodern stalwart ideas and indeed absolutely
ecessary to Justify such violent assumptions :,
power AS, for instance, the Johnny Daven- 8
ort election law involves, we beg to remind ,
II >nr rnaIaro hat Il, -, Il, |
let with some authorities which we think
IT, b. will respect For instance, in the case ,
TGras VS., Whtte, 7 Wallace, 725 Chief Jus.
&C Waite of the Supreme Court of the L. s.,
Us down some very hcterodox doctrine like
&c following: u
"But the perpetuity and indssolubility of a.
c Union by no means implies the loss of dis
net and individual existence, or Of the right
selfgovernment by the states.
nder the Constitution, though the powers of r
C states were much restricted still, all pow :,
$ not delegated to the United States nor pro. .
bited To the states are reserved to the states tC
spcc,lvcly or to the people. And we have q,
ready had occasion to remark that the pco- L.
c OF each state compose a state, having its
rn government, and endowed with all the
notions of Il separate and Independent exis tC
nee and that without the states in the Union G,
ere could be no such political body as the ;;
nited States z Wallace 76), Not only u
cretore can there be no loss of separate al
ID independent autonomy to the states v
rough their union under the Constitution m
1t II may not be unreasonably said that the
of the states and the maintenance OF
their governments, are as much within the y
sign and care of the Constitution as the pres. "
vatlon of the Union and the maintenance of !,
c national government The Constitution, :,
all its provisions, looks to an indestructible u
ZION Of indcstructibe states" II
Legislatures are in the habit of acting pretty Il
'unties, townships and school districts, or Il
hanging their boundaries, or granting or re- ?
.allnp munlcinal charters: but IL rs Mr. lp